Does the unreliable version of your code converge after a longer period, perhaps? Try running it for a minute or two and compare the results.
- Blair On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Philip Bennefall <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi Blair, > > What I'm doing as a test is to set up both a server and a client using > ENet, connected through localhost. The server echos back anything it > receives, and the client prints out statistics after 10 seconds. > > Kind regards, > > Philip Bennefall > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Blair Holloway <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:23 AM > *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues > > Generally, no. 500ms should be adequate; pinging more frequently is just > going to take up more bandwidth from ping responses (reliable acks). > > What are you using for comparison as a "valid" ping? The output of your > platform's ping command? > > - Blair > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Philip Bennefall < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Blair, >> >> Do you think it'd be a good idea to decrease the ping interval? Maybe to >> 200 milliseconds? >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Philip Bennefall >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Blair Holloway <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:06 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Some ENet issues >> >> By default, Enet sends (reliable) ping packets every 500ms, if no other >> reliable traffic was sent in that interval. If you're sending reliable >> packets 30 times per second instead of 2 times, it's possible Enet is >> deriving a more accurate average round trip time. >> >> - Blair >> >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Philip Bennefall < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Lee and others, >>> >>> I am having some minor issues with ENet. >>> >>> First, I'm trying to get the average up and downstream for each peer by >>> using the appropriate data fields in the peer structure but it always >>> returns 0 for some reason. The same seems to be true with the host structure >>> as well. >>> >>> Second, when I look at the average round trip time for a peer, this value >>> is only correct if I send out a few reliable packets. on localhost, for >>> instance, I ran a test where I sent 30 unreliable packets every second. I >>> poll the network every 5 milliseconds, but got an average round trip of 44 >>> milliseconds. When I changed it to reliable packets, however, I got an >>> average of 12 which seems much more reasonable. Is this intended behavior? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any help. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Philip Bennefall >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 >> 12:37:00 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ENet-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 > 12:37:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
