50 is really high, but if your packets are really small, it's possibly maintainable. I'd say setup a game with your maximum player count/bandwidth usage, and measure your bandwidth with any network monitoring tool (task manager will even give you a rough idea). Keep all the users up channels below 128k**bit** with a little margin, and you should be fine.
Chris On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Philip Bennefall <[email protected]>wrote: > Thank you Chris, for your very helpful information. based on this, do you > think that perhaps 50 would be a reasonable maximum? > > 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. > > Again, thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Philip Bennefall > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Chris Jurney <[email protected]> > *To:* Discussion of the ENet library <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2463 - Release Date: 10/27/09 > 15:50:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
