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.
Upstream header overhead = 60 byte header * rate * 8 bits/packet 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. (I'm not 100% sure of my size number for eNet because we have fiddled with headers a bit) Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman" <[email protected]> > To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:27 PM > > Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches > > > Don't rely on the throttle. Choose a reasonable rate to begin with. >> 20-30 times a second is probably fair. Keep in mind that on average an >> event will occur half-way between an interval, so 20 Hz does not >> correspond to 50 ms latency, but rather on average more like 25 ms, and >> by the time you get to 30 Hz your average latency is like 16 ms. Taking >> that up to 50 Hz, and your average latency is only about 10 ms, so >> you're making huge jumps in bandwidth usage for very marginal benefits. >> >> Lee >> >> Philip Bennefall wrote: >> >>> I understand what you're saying there. But say then that I start at a >>> rate of 50 per second, and then let ENet's dynamic throttle take it >>> down if necessary? Would that be a safe approach? It would allow for >>> 50 packets a second in ideal network conditions such as a lan or two >>> super connections, and automatically adapt itself to other >>> circumstances. What do you think? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Philip Bennefall >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Nuno Silva <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *To:* Discussion of the ENet library <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:04 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending >>> approaches >>> >>> 60 times per second would probably be overkill on most >>> connections, considering you send packets every 16ms, which IMHO >>> may be a bit too fast even for TCP. Do notice that i'm no >>> networking expert, but having a guy from the other side of the >>> world send/receive packets every 16ms instead of the usual 50ms >>> will need a pretty darn good connection. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Philip Bennefall >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Lee, >>> >>> Would it be acceptable to send small packets out, say 60 times >>> a second or so? Will ENet handle it if it getst oo much? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Philip Bennefall >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman" >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:00 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending >>> approaches >>> >>> >>> Mihai is mistaken. Sauerbraten only sends 30 times a >>> second. Events like >>> gun shots are sent reliably. Only position data for >>> players is sent >>> unreliably. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> Philip Bennefall wrote: >>> >>> So what is the game frame rate in sauerbraten? How >>> often does it end >>> up sending updates, how many times a second? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Philip Bennefall >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.32/2459 - Release >>> Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: >>> 10/26/09 20:22:00 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ENet-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/26/09 > 20:22:00 > > _______________________________________________ > ENet-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
