But that is sort of my point. The reason ENet is sucking is because you
are bombarding it with a really silly amount of packets exactly because
of how you are doing things. I would rather encourage you to use
unreliable tiles of the screen that fit in 1KB unreliable packets, as
anything else is going to cause symptoms you are observing, i.e. lots of
CPU wastage crawling over huge packet lists.
Lee
On 09/26/2010 05:35 PM, Nicholas J Ingrassellino wrote:
Blunt is good.
My disclaimer in my first message was meant to pose this as an
experiment. This is a proof of concept kind of thing and nothing more.
The idea is to develop an alternative to sending hold frames (or only
the deltas). Much like VoIP does not suffer from some missing data I
want to do a little work on how much an image would suffer from the
smallest discrete unit (a pixel) missing unexpectedly. Look at my
experiment as anything other than academic-- or a what if-- and you
miss the point.
*This is purely a exercise of the mind with a little code to back it up.*
Compression and related topics will come later when I have the basics
figured out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas J Ingrassellino
LifebloodNetworks.com <http://www.lifebloodnetworks.com/> ||
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically
solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could
not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical
steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
- John Carmack on software patents
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
