PDA

View Full Version : ATTENTION - BroadBand Users Set your NETWORK SPEED!!!!!



VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 03:41 PM
As long as i have been running WarClouds, I have got nothing but complaints on just about every il2 forum on the net. Everytime I post on what you need to do to make your client run smoothly on the server, but no one every seems to pay me any attention. I do not make this stuff up, when I make suggestions they are tested to make sure that work as intended. The most IMPORTANT thing that people can do to help the server or ANY server for that matter run smoothly is to set your Network settings correctly. I have asked many times for people to do this but no one ever seems to pay me any mind. I have made at least 10 posts on this and I spam the ingame chat with a message every 2 minutes asking people to make this adjustment, but no one ever does this. You cannot expect a server with a large amount of players on it to run smoothly when you connect to the sever with a 28.8 connection. It will just not work. I just checked the server at this very moment, and of the 50 players on the server, only 5 of them are running at the correct network setting. This is a simple thing for you to setup. So AGAIN, I will post what you need to do:

1. Goto your Hyperlobby dir and find the file called hlpro.ini. Open this file and scroll to the bottom and find the following section and make the following changes:

[Forgotten Battles]
joinDelay=20
clientRate=8000 <----- this defaults to '3000', change this to '8000'
;Determine the client source port. Useful when is more that one user behind the NAT router.
;Must be diferent for each user behind the same NAT router
localPort=21000
;This detecting right IP address for systems with more that one network adapters
;Default is 1 (on)
DetectLocalIP = 1
Order=20

2. Next you need to change your game settings incase you join thru direct ip or ASE. This can be done 3 ways.

A: Run il2setup.exe and goto the network tab and change your speed to ISDN.
B: Launch the game, goto Hardware/Network and change your speed to ISDN.
C: Open your conf.ini file and goto the following section and make the following changes:

[NET]
speed=8000 <--- make sure this is set to 8000.

Yes i understand that some of you are on 56k connections, So in your case set this to 56k or 5000.

I am sorry if I am coming across a little on the angry side, but honestly I am tired of people saying I do not know how to run my server and set it up to run properly. Especially when these same people cannot set their own game to run correctly. You lag/stutters are GREATLY influenced by others in the current game version. If one person is laggin badly, it will cause lag/stutters for anyone that can see this person in their view.

Many people have insisted that i lower the player count. Well i am sorry fellows, this is not going to happen. When EVERYONE on the server has the correct settings and has their system running smoothly, the server runs as smooth as glass. I have tested this and i know it for a FACT! I have the ability to change everyones netspeed thru the server console. And EVERY time i do this, the server runs Great. So its in the hands of the players. You need to make these changes and make sure that you have your game setup properly. I have said this a thousand times and I will stand by this statement:

"If the SERVER is causing the lag/stutters, then EVERYONE on the server will experience the lag/stutters."

Another thing that people also need to understand, its not possible for a server to run good for EVERYONE in the world. Some people just do not have a good enough connection to the server to play on it. Some people that are in Europe, Austrialia, Germany, and countless other countries on the other side of the pond just will not have a good enough connection to play on the server. I have NO control over this. It would not matter if the server has 20 players or 60 players, these peoples ability to play on the server will not change. Ping means nothing. Packetloss mean everything. I have one guy that lives in AU and gets a 270ms ping to the server. His connection to the server is ROCK SOLID. He plays on the server everyday and has no lag/stutter issues. I have not once seen his name kick up in my "lag has been detected" message. But i know some players with less then 100 pings that cannot play on the server and not lag. It all comes down to the quality of your connection to the server.

Again, I am sorry if I am coming across a little on the rash side, but I honestly am at the end of my rope with this one. Please make these simple changes and lets move on from that. Tell your squad members, your flying buddies, your wingman, he11 SHOUT it from atop your house. EVERYONE PLEASE ADJUST YOUR NETWORK SETTINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

S~ and happy flying

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 03:41 PM
As long as i have been running WarClouds, I have got nothing but complaints on just about every il2 forum on the net. Everytime I post on what you need to do to make your client run smoothly on the server, but no one every seems to pay me any attention. I do not make this stuff up, when I make suggestions they are tested to make sure that work as intended. The most IMPORTANT thing that people can do to help the server or ANY server for that matter run smoothly is to set your Network settings correctly. I have asked many times for people to do this but no one ever seems to pay me any mind. I have made at least 10 posts on this and I spam the ingame chat with a message every 2 minutes asking people to make this adjustment, but no one ever does this. You cannot expect a server with a large amount of players on it to run smoothly when you connect to the sever with a 28.8 connection. It will just not work. I just checked the server at this very moment, and of the 50 players on the server, only 5 of them are running at the correct network setting. This is a simple thing for you to setup. So AGAIN, I will post what you need to do:

1. Goto your Hyperlobby dir and find the file called hlpro.ini. Open this file and scroll to the bottom and find the following section and make the following changes:

[Forgotten Battles]
joinDelay=20
clientRate=8000 &lt;----- this defaults to '3000', change this to '8000'
;Determine the client source port. Useful when is more that one user behind the NAT router.
;Must be diferent for each user behind the same NAT router
localPort=21000
;This detecting right IP address for systems with more that one network adapters
;Default is 1 (on)
DetectLocalIP = 1
Order=20

2. Next you need to change your game settings incase you join thru direct ip or ASE. This can be done 3 ways.

A: Run il2setup.exe and goto the network tab and change your speed to ISDN.
B: Launch the game, goto Hardware/Network and change your speed to ISDN.
C: Open your conf.ini file and goto the following section and make the following changes:

[NET]
speed=8000 &lt;--- make sure this is set to 8000.

Yes i understand that some of you are on 56k connections, So in your case set this to 56k or 5000.

I am sorry if I am coming across a little on the angry side, but honestly I am tired of people saying I do not know how to run my server and set it up to run properly. Especially when these same people cannot set their own game to run correctly. You lag/stutters are GREATLY influenced by others in the current game version. If one person is laggin badly, it will cause lag/stutters for anyone that can see this person in their view.

Many people have insisted that i lower the player count. Well i am sorry fellows, this is not going to happen. When EVERYONE on the server has the correct settings and has their system running smoothly, the server runs as smooth as glass. I have tested this and i know it for a FACT! I have the ability to change everyones netspeed thru the server console. And EVERY time i do this, the server runs Great. So its in the hands of the players. You need to make these changes and make sure that you have your game setup properly. I have said this a thousand times and I will stand by this statement:

"If the SERVER is causing the lag/stutters, then EVERYONE on the server will experience the lag/stutters."

Another thing that people also need to understand, its not possible for a server to run good for EVERYONE in the world. Some people just do not have a good enough connection to the server to play on it. Some people that are in Europe, Austrialia, Germany, and countless other countries on the other side of the pond just will not have a good enough connection to play on the server. I have NO control over this. It would not matter if the server has 20 players or 60 players, these peoples ability to play on the server will not change. Ping means nothing. Packetloss mean everything. I have one guy that lives in AU and gets a 270ms ping to the server. His connection to the server is ROCK SOLID. He plays on the server everyday and has no lag/stutter issues. I have not once seen his name kick up in my "lag has been detected" message. But i know some players with less then 100 pings that cannot play on the server and not lag. It all comes down to the quality of your connection to the server.

Again, I am sorry if I am coming across a little on the rash side, but I honestly am at the end of my rope with this one. Please make these simple changes and lets move on from that. Tell your squad members, your flying buddies, your wingman, he11 SHOUT it from atop your house. EVERYONE PLEASE ADJUST YOUR NETWORK SETTINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

S~ and happy flying

SPaRX

oldschool1992
12-28-2004, 03:45 PM
cant the server override the clients setting??

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 03:55 PM
The only way the server "automatically" overrides the clients settings is if the clients is set HIGHER then the servers. So if you set your speed to 10000, but i have the server set to 5000, the server will lower your speed to 5000 when you connect to the server. It will not raise the speed. If the client is set to 3000 and the server is set to 5000, then the server will allow the client to connect at the 3000 speed. You can change the clients speed manually, as i stated above, but taht requires ALOT of work and its not automated. I am working with a programmer right now on creating a script to automate this, but would prefer to not have to run anymore external apps if its not needed. These changes are simple. And will not effect your gameplay except for the better.

S~!
SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-28-2004, 04:05 PM
Don't adjust your net speed unless you prefer a lot of warping.

You have been warned.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 04:09 PM
Well Baldie,

You can make that statement all you want, but i have tested this and know for a fact it works. As i stated above, i can change everyones netspeed on the server at will. Takes me bout 10 mins to write the .cmd file to do it. And EVERYTIME i do this, everyones connection smooths out. Please to not interject into this if you have no validation in your statements.

S~

SPaRX

***edit*** Baldie, it was brought to my attention from another person that you may very well agree with what i have stated here, therefore i am adding this to my post. But i am leaving my orginal post just incase http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
12-28-2004, 04:18 PM
I`m with Baldie on this one SPaRX, for the client, even if he is on T3 line, all is needed 3k. For the Server, 10k per 30 clients, give or take. That`s that.

Sorry to say this, but - making statements like this could be very harmful to other hosts and clients. If everyone and his brother will start messing with something that was proven 100 times ... will have nothing but chaos. I understand that you are trying to improve gaming experiances in WarClouds... but people who are making those changes as we speak... not flying on WarClouds all the time. Think about it.

Cheers!

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 04:26 PM
Ivan,

I am sorry, but you are incorrect in how the netspeed works. Here is what i have found through my testing.

When you set the netspeed, you are setting the speed PER Channel. A channel is assigned to each player when the connect. So by you setting your servers netspeed to 10000, you are allowing a client to connect on their channel at a max speed of 10000. In the past I believed as you did that this set the TOTAL speed for all connected clients, but this is not the fact. After further investigation, i have found what i am stating here to be true.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 04:29 PM
Just to give you further information. the command that we have been sticking by for ages:

set netspeed 5000

does nothing to adjust your network settings. All this statement does is creates an variable called "netspeed" and assigns that variable a value of 5000. It does not infact change your network settings.

Hunter82
12-28-2004, 04:30 PM
here's the effect of net settings on traffic with skin download on.

14.4:

512 KB = 17 mins
1024 kb = 31 mins

28.8:

512 kb = 8 mins
1024 kb = 14 mins

56k:

512kb = 6 mins
1024kb = 11 mins

ISDN:

512kb = 3 mins
1024kb = 5 mins

Cable/DSL:

512kb = 50 sec
1024kb = 2mins

LAN:

512kb = 38 secs
1024kb = 1 min 25 secs

all are averages and in/out (download/upload).

LAN:

47.2 KB/13.2 kb
33.6 kb/ -1kb (less than 1 kb)

Cable/DSL:

46.7 kb/12.4 kb
33.5 kb/ -1kb

ISDN:

23.5kb/7kb
12.1/-1kb

56k:

13.4/4.7
11.2/-1k

any setting below 56k yielded roughly the same transfer rates and server was on HL during test.

Overall increasing net speed will help d/l skins faster but will not effect overall gameplay.

1-3 kb per person upload is generaly what is used regardless of the settings of user and server and upload is 3X's greater than download via the server. There's only so much data that needs to be transfered....

Proccessing of data I/O is another story.

clint-ruin
12-28-2004, 04:30 PM
I'd go with what Ivan said actually. This is a somewhat complex issue and you start to get into general networking concepts more than anything else discussing it.

Depending on your line speed and how packets are manged between the client machine and the server, even the default 14.4 rate may be able to produce better, faster results than higher rates. Do you want say, 5 low fidelity updates per second, or do you want 1 high fidelity update per second? Given that the only thing being transmitted is the players own plane position, stick input, firing, etc, I can't see how it hurts to set this on the low side. Other planes may appear to warp in and out more often -to you- with the low rate, all other factors depending, but you will be able to send more frequent updates to the server and depend less on prediction generally because of it, which -should- make you warp less to other players.

For your server - the path most clients take to you may be better served by setting at 64k net rate, I'm not arguing against your own tests. But for other servers it may well be different.

Have you ever run any packet fragmentation tests from your end to problem clients?

Hunter82
12-28-2004, 04:33 PM
socket UDP is limited to 10K is correct however if a user increases their netspeed over what their true sustained upload is avilable this will INCREASE packet loss on the client side and this will increase warp for all players as the data stream is interupted

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
Ivan,

I am sorry, but you are incorrect in how the netspeed works. Here is what i have found through my testing.

When you set the netspeed, you are setting the speed PER Channel. A channel is assigned to each player when the connect. So by you setting your servers netspeed to 10000, you are allowing a client to connect on their channel at a max speed of 10000. In the past I believed as you did that this set the TOTAL speed for all connected clients, but this is not the fact. After further investigation, i have found what i am stating here to be true.

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 04:40 PM
Yes clint i have.

I am trying to convey what i have found here, and believe me guys, i would NOT post this information if i did not find it to be true. There following are FACTS that i have discovered in my tests:

1. When a player connects to a server, he is assigned a 'channel'. The channel numbers start at 1 and by 2. The channel numbers will not reset to 1 until the server is restarted. I have seen channel numbers as high as 8000 in just a few days. Each time a player connects he gets a new channel number.

2. The server controls the MAX speed per channel. So if you set your server's netspeed to 10000, then you are giving your clients the ability to connect to the server speed rate from 0 - 10000. So if a client sets his netspeed to 25000 (cable/dsl), then when he connects to your server, he will connect at 10000. Now if the client has his netspeed set to 5000 (56k), then he will only connect at that speed regardless of what you have the server set to.

3. the command 'set netspeed 5000' is a farse and does NOTHING to adjust your netspeed. As i stated above, all this does is create a variable called 'netspeed' and assigns it a value of 5000.

Hunter and Ivan, if you have any doubts in what i have found, then I invite you to join me on my Teamspeak server or in any other form of commmunitcation, and I can prove to you that these statements are infact true.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 04:42 PM
Hunter,

I know what you are saying here, and i used to believe that as well. But that is not how this works. The server sets teh speed the client is connected at. I dont care if the client connects to the server at 1 million, the server will set his channel to 10000 if that is what you have your server config set to.

I would much like to get with you so i can show you that these finding are in fact true.

After further reading your post Hunter, i see the other pooint you are trying to make. But in this day and age, if somoen can not sustain a 56k upload speed, then they need to talk to their internet provider.

SPaRX

Hunter82
12-28-2004, 05:07 PM
Sparx I'll try and get with you this week but you are not understanding what we are saying..this is not about the server or it's ability,it's about the client and their sustained abilities.

Let's just say for ha-ha's

Client A has a 100k upload connection this is fine for a 8000( 8k) sustained netspeed.

Client B has a 10k upload this would require 80% of their available upload for a 8000 netspeed.

Client C has a 5k upload and potentially 100% bandwidth usage.

usually anything over 50% on a sustained upload is going to cause isssues during gameplay. Also most players will use comms requiring even more upload and sometimes equal to what is required by the game itself. Mapload adds approx 2kb needed upload from the server during client join over normal gameplay...frequent joiners add to the mayhem.

Once again this is not about a server or it's connection...
The socket UDP connection is limited per channel X's allowed channels/clients that's not the issue.

So on the server side in theory if a user is set at 3000 X 33(32 + server) players = just under 1mb upload usage server side...so the average T1 with 50 players is using all 1.5mb and not leaving anything for overhead or surges.



Having a user change their net speed higher than what they can handle will cause issues for that player and anyone else in the game. They need to set it lower than their rated connection speed to allow for smooth gameplay for all and on all servers.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 05:07 PM
Another thing i would like to state here as well. Lets look at this from a client end for a second. There is only so much data taht you need to send to the server. Yes Hunter i do agree with you on this point. So by increasing the netspeed on the client, you will infact not see a dramtic increase in the clients upstream. The client only needs to send so much data. Lets say that optimally, the client needs to send data at 2kbps. No matter what you set the netspeed to, each client will send the required 2kpbs. But what you will see an increase in is the clients downstream from the server. You are giving the server more Pipe to work with. So i can send you data faster. THIS is what makes the difference. Lets say that a server needs to send a client 300bps data per player on the server. The server will need to send you more data as the number of players increases. Sure on a server running 20 players or so, you will not see much of a difference, but when there is 50 players on the server, the server needs to send you ALOT more data.

Now lets look at the server side. Lets look at 50 players. The servers downsteam will not really be effected by the changes in netspeed. As stated before, he clients only need to send so much data. If we keep with the above figures and the clients is only going to send 2kbps per connectoin, then you will see no changes in your downstream on the server. But now when you start looking at the Upstream side, you are going to see dramtic increases when you start changing the netspeed. If we keep with the above 300bps per player on the server, then each player needs to receive ~15kbps (i know this is not exact, didnt do the exact math). Now if you restrict the server to only sending 2kbps per client, there is no way that the server can keep everyone in sync. This is why the netspeed per client needs to be increased. These are not actual number, just numbers i am using to prove my points.

S~
SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-28-2004, 05:07 PM
Sparx said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> After further reading your post Hunter, i see the other pooint you are trying to make. But in this day and age, if somoen can not sustain a 56k upload speed, then they need to talk to their internet provider. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They need a V92 [?] modem for that, otherwise, if it's digital only at the ISPs end, they get standard 56k down [max - being very generous] and 33.6ish up.

ISDN uploads/downloads will represent up to 200% of a typical 56k connections possible stream. This is before you take into consideration UDP flooding, retransmit, total re-sync server barfs, etc.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 05:13 PM
I know what you are saying Hunter. But as i stated above, i agree with you that you do not see and increase in clients UPSTREAM as you increase netspeed. I too have seen this durning my tests. So with that said, by increasing the clients netspeed, you will not saturate thier upsteam. It will remain consistant. The only increase you will see is in the clients downstream. While doing my testing, i have seen this to hold pretty true.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 05:16 PM
Clint,

I am not saying that this will make it so a 56k player will be able to play on the server with 50 players. IMHO, if you are on a 56k connection, you really should not be on a server with more the 16-20 players, depending on how good your connection is to that server. What i am trying to get through here is, that broadband players need to do this to help make the server run smoothly. Then having a few 56k flyers on the server will not hurt the performance as much

SPaRX

Hunter82
12-28-2004, 05:36 PM
Just tested this on your server Sparx with 43 players in.

@ 3000 usage up was 1.47 kb 2.97kb down

@ 8000 usage up was 2.67 and 6.07 down

as you can see both speeds are increased when net speed is changed.

Having too high a sustained upload/download is asking for trouble.

We could debate this forever so I'll just have to get with you on TS one night and we can brow beat eachother http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 05:44 PM
Hunter,

I guess we just need to get togehter. I still stand by what i am saying here. To run servers with 50+ server, you need to have more data going between server and client. And by looking at those figures you posted, they do not look out of wack to me. I have the server set to netspeed of 5000. That is 56k settings. At 3000 speed, you were restricting your data through your client to 28.8. Hence the downstream of 2.87. When you upped your netspeed to 8000, the server restricted your speed to 5000 (56k), hence the downstream of 6.07. What i do get from your post is that i was wrong in how upstream is effected by setting netspeed. My conclusion from those two sets of values is that the netcode will use 50% of your channel speed in the upstream. If you look at the upstreams vs the downstreams, that is pretty clear. So i would venture to say that if you set your netspeed to 2000 (14.4k), you would see value in the area ~.75 kb up and ~1.5kb down.

I just want to claifly this one more time. I am not posting this information to help 56k users play smoothly. IMHO, a 56k player should not expect to be able to play on the server and have no lag. This information is for broadband users. With that being said, if your broadband connection cannot sustain even a 56k upstream, then i would be calling your ISP. My personal connection is able to sustain 40k/sec upstream consistantly. So requiring my client to send a measly 5k/sec to the server is not asking to much.


SPaRX

SPaRX

VW-IceFire
12-28-2004, 05:51 PM
I made this change months ago...set it upto 8000. Nobody has said anything to me so far. Online performance is generally very smooth. But it was pretty good before...its really hard to say except that it does work fine (not sure how well - nothing to judge by) on other servers. Or seemingly so...

clint-ruin
12-28-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
IMHO, a 56k player should not expect to be able to play on the server and have no lag. This information is for broadband users. With that being said, if your broadband connection cannot sustain even a 56k upstream, then i would be calling your ISP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's fine and all, and I'd agree, but when you tag your message

EVERYONE PLEASE ADJUST YOUR NETWORK SETTINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

you are definitely going to attract pedants such as myself who will pop up and say, actually, no, maybe not everyone :&gt;

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-28-2004, 06:04 PM
clint,

Point taken. Thread title changed.

PF_Coastie
12-28-2004, 06:23 PM
I wish all persons in the forum would read this thread. Very informative info here even though there is a difference in opinion. That is what is amazing about this thread. Basically we have several different opinions on a given subject and all parties are actually discussing their points like adults!

I am thoroughly impressed. Great thread guys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BaldieJr
12-28-2004, 06:40 PM
Trust me, if you set your net speed above the HL default, you have made yourself a victim.

LeadSpitter_
12-28-2004, 06:45 PM
I have to agree with baldie, i have my network speed =25000 which is for dsl/cable speed. If i switch to 8000 i get these mini warps from all aircraft. I dont recommend switching to =8000 which is much slower speed.

However im not aware if the server has it set for =8000 if it effects all users.

I changed my HLpro config.ini to =25000 or i get the mini warps. I also have my il2fb config.ini =25000 as well.

Hunter82 recommended it to me and always fixed the problem of planes miniwarping.

I guess its different for everyone so 8000 can cause more problems telling everyone to switch to it.

I also have 7m down 784k up dsl. Maybe isdn settings is better for people overseas with 200+ ping to a server based in the US.

Weather_Man
12-28-2004, 09:28 PM
Interesting reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sparx, I understand your desire to perfect how your server runs. But, if these settings cannot be set server-side, then it's basically irrelevant whether it works better or not. As you know, very few people are willing to go and modify their .ini files for whatever reason. IMO, it's unreasonable, and possible a bit irresponsible to ask people to do so. Not everyone is an uber-user. Inevitably, someone will go and completely fubar his settings somehow. You should at least say "modify at your own risk", or something.

I think you need to look into the best setup you can manage that does not include clients doing anything other than hitting play. That's the real world.

Not trying to be negative, just my perspective. Your server has always run very well for me, so I'm not complaining about it at all.

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 12:01 AM
Hunter,
I'd like your opinion on how I should set mine? My connection is 3000/256

MuerteColorado
12-29-2004, 12:59 AM
no one should fiddle with their ini file unless they are computer savvy. most gamers arent.

i can do it but to most others it would be the same as changing their BIOS. they dont know what your talking about and shouldnt have to mess with it to play a game.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Hunter,
I'd like your opinion on how I should set mine? My connection is 3000/256 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your own internet speed isnt that relevant

its mainly to do with what setting the HOST should set & getting the CLIENTS to match that setting

vso
12-29-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MuerteColorado:
no one should fiddle with their ini file unless they are computer savvy. most gamers arent.

i can do it but to most others it would be the same as changing their BIOS. they dont know what your talking about and shouldnt have to mess with it to play a game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about?

These very same mods have everyone in their .ini files changing their settings for graphics, sound, and everything else to get their game to run right......what makes this any different?

Wolf-Strike
12-29-2004, 03:24 AM
Jeez,all Sparx is asking is that we make sure that we all open up our lines.Now I have very little understanding of Network code so what i say here is just what I read.

It seems as though Sparxs is saying that its all fine and dandy to leave the setting at 3000 but that if you want to play with more players on the same server,then for everyones sake open up your lines.3000 default isnt enuff to download 50 clients of info sent to your pc so the server will start to lag ruining it for everyone.Now when Sparx makes this automatic we will never see this being done but for now lets help out the server.

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 04:01 AM
I'm on 768 DSL with 607 down and 132 up. What should I be setting connections to?

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 04:06 AM
how many are you wanting to host ?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-29-2004, 05:12 AM
well i am using the default 14.4K setup on a DSL line and what should i say ?

there is NO difference in Warp/LaG from 14.4 to the DSL or ISDN setup.
It is just the Skin DL that is faster, but Skin DL can create lag. (ping rising by some 80ms when i host a game for 8 Payers for example)

i am using the 14.4K setup and can get results between 90ms and 110ms for european servers.
and better than 90 is not possible with my line.

if you wan't better Gameplay on your server then consider Disabling skin DL, it realy helps.

Hunter82
12-29-2004, 05:53 AM
I'd try 5000 and test it see if their is any issues, if so then drop 1 setting lower

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Hunter,
I'd like your opinion on how I should set mine? My connection is 3000/256 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunter82
12-29-2004, 05:55 AM
try 5000 then 3000 if any issues.... I use 3000 on mine and have a 1mb up connection. Data transfer in the game does not really require more IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I'm on 768 DSL with 607 down and 132 up. What should I be setting connections to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunter82
12-29-2004, 05:58 AM
Actually on the client side you do want to restrict your connection to a setting lower than your total sustainable upload with 0 packet loss. Most ISP's say you have X amount of upload but that is not sustained it's burst speed and cannot handle long periods of data transfer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Hunter,
I'd like your opinion on how I should set mine? My connection is 3000/256 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your own internet speed isnt that relevant

its mainly to do with what setting the HOST should set & getting the CLIENTS to match that setting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TgD Thunderbolt56
12-29-2004, 06:39 AM
I've changed mine to test tonight. I'm one who always pings 50 or so to WC and still get booted and have occassional ping spikes that cause warnings as well. I'm on cable and have never had issues until lately on any server with regards to getting kicked.

I play many different servers. Is the consensus suggesting this will create problems on other servers?

TB (connection n00b)

MPD496
12-29-2004, 07:50 AM
hey thanks for the info sparx. changed mine over and it runs great. your server is just about the only one i play on anyways. And for the rest that disagree with what sparx has stated, don't change anything and play elsewhere.

VOL_Mountain
12-29-2004, 08:07 AM
This topic is important enough that guidelines from 1C would be a benefit.

Could a paragraph or two be added to the next ReadMe in the v3.04 patch?

Maybe a forum moderator could "push this uphill" a bit so 1C can address this.

FYI; my impression is that SPEED is much less significant than PACKET LOSS.

Recon_609IAP
12-29-2004, 08:29 AM
decrease the amount of pilots, setup static aircraft, minimize the amount of aircraft available, minimize the amount of ground objects. Turn off those server daemon tools as well.

That will help.

Right now - WC is trying to sustain too many people, too many aircraft type, some server tool that constant is writing to the text area - no amount of voodoo netspeed settings are going to offset that.

clint-ruin
12-29-2004, 08:45 AM
I've asked Oleg a few times now what's going on with this and never really gotten much answer. Recon makes a good point here though, in that what will usually kill off performance for any network game is an overloaded server. What overloads a server? Much of what Recon said, but particularly - lots and lots of players in the same area of a map, where there is no real way to minimise the amount of visible players, and where high precision updates are having to be sent for a large number of objects to a large number of players. One of the tricks used by most networking games is for the server to try to send only as little data as is needed for things that can't possibly influence the client who requests the data, before the next update comes down. You don't get to do that if everyone's just a couple of KM from each other and able to see, shoot at and hit everyone else in the next half a second.

Hunter and Sparx, I would be interested in seeing just what kind of peaks and troughs you guys are getting from your DS, both cpu and network utilisation wise .. and how that varies with the map and number of players you have going at once.

Bear in mind that as I said, sparx's own server setup may indeed respond best to every client setting ISDN rates for their stream. What can tend to influence this is ATM lines between you and other players [straps together a number of disparate sized lines, and sends the results off at fixed time or size intervals], and how well that average packet size fits in to each frame every router sends between you and the server. Typically at least, smaller data sends and requests can be fitted in much more cleanly into any style of connection, than using larger ones which may have to be fragmented at some point down the line. Loss is also affected here - losing one small update is not much a problem, but one big update, which may be the only one you see for a while, is going to make things very ugly.

edit: Should add that the one answer I've ever gotten on this was - "network speed is packet size and rate" from Oleg. If that's true then you're then going to rely on everything from your IP to the server not to break that up, flood out, or whatever.

crazyivan1970
12-29-2004, 09:00 AM
I already contacted 1C network programmer, waiting for reply. But i believe this was discussed already, i just can`t find that topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Was like a year ago

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 09:47 AM
Clints getting very warm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The biggest tip-off is near max lag and far max lag.

Its a Hub and Spoke network.

Speed is determined by the CLIENT, up to the servers allowed maximum.

Max throughput happens when max clients are at min range.

Think it all through.... Lost packets, dropped packets, mis-ordered packets. All of this has to be fixed. Garbage multiplied by itself is more garbage.

Just think on it.

Hunter82
12-29-2004, 10:09 AM
bingo

123-Wulf-JG123
12-29-2004, 10:32 AM
OK all....I have NO idea about any of this technobabble, its a black art to me.
Simple question:
Do I need to change anything in my .ini files ?
I only host occasionaly 5 or 6 max, Im on Broadband (1mb) and would like to know in laymans terms what I have to do? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hunter82
12-29-2004, 10:33 AM
leave it alone

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
OK all....I have NO idea about any of this technobabble, its a black art to me.
Simple question:
Do I need to change anything in my .ini files ?
I only host occasionaly 5 or 6 max, Im on Broadband (1mb) and would like to know in laymans terms what I have to do? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Takata_
12-29-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Think it all through.... Lost packets, dropped packets, mis-ordered packets. All of this has to be fixed. Garbage multiplied by itself is more garbage.

Just think on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

you guys (Baldie, Hunter) are taking an incredible risk contradicting the Game Master himself!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Don't you want to play on Warclouds server anymore? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Takata

Wolf-Strike
12-29-2004, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
decrease the amount of pilots, setup static aircraft, minimize the amount of aircraft available, minimize the amount of ground objects. Turn off those server daemon tools as well.

That will help.

Right now - WC is trying to sustain too many people, too many aircraft type, some server tool that constant is writing to the text area - no amount of voodoo netspeed settings are going to offset that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF...are you playing on the same server that I am on??Recon,I find that Warclouds is totally lag-free even with full players and this is on my low end PC.Thanks alot to my cable connection but I play on other servers and it lags with less people.I think Sparx knows what hes doing.It plays the same as a server that has no ground objects and allows 5 people on,but again this is on my PC.

About the server tool,this is what makes Warclouds so good.I look at it like ground control vectoring fighters to areas that are experiencing attacks.....keep it I sayhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Peace out,
Dale

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
i am using the 14.4K setup and can get results between 90ms and 110ms for european servers.
and better than 90 is not possible with my line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ping isnt related to NETSPEED setting

& it isnt related to warping or lag much at all

my ping is never really below 200 , & yet this one room i joined that was hosted by a aussie , was just about the worst DF room i have ever been in for warping

my ping didnt go over 100

Hosts need to host as many as their computer can handel

as well as how many their internet connection can handel

i used to host on 56K as well when that was all i had

i could host 6 people ok back then

now my internet is over 1Mbs down & 256K up

i can only host 8 people now , & thats due to my computer

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Right now - WC is trying to sustain too many people, too many aircraft type, some server tool that constant is writing to the text area - no amount of voodoo netspeed settings are going to offset that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
not entirely true

by setting the same NetSpeed setting your getting "in synch" with the HOST

you will be sending & receiving the same size packets to & from the HOST

by trying to send too Large a packet to the host that what he is set to accept , your going to lose packets of data

setting the same Netspeed setting is about getting this in synch with the Host

this is what you can do to help reduce Lag & Warp just thru your internet setting in-game

Lag & Warp also come from your PC's inadequacy

dont host too many

dont have too many thing happening in your DF rooms or Coops

dont have your CPU resources taken up by other programs when your hosting

DO set the same NETSPEED setting as the Host WHENEVERR you join a new DF room or Coop

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
Simple question:
Do I need to change anything in my .ini files ?
I only host occasionaly 5 or 6 max, Im on Broadband (1mb) and would like to know in laymans terms what I have to do? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your the host & you only are hosting for 6 people ?

how fast is your internet speed ?

dont set your NetSpeed setting too high

like say your UL at 128 Kbs

setting your Netspeed to 28.8 is too fast

28.8 x 6 = 172.8

get the drift now ?

whats more important , is to get all in your room on the same setting

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:57 PM
HEY IVAN . . . .

is this the thread ?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=317108502&p=2

crazyivan1970
12-29-2004, 03:08 PM
no BS, not this one... the one where i actually posted reply from 1C programmer on how netspeed and other setting work... i can`t find that e-mail either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

crazyivan1970
12-29-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Think it all through.... Lost packets, dropped packets, mis-ordered packets. All of this has to be fixed. Garbage multiplied by itself is more garbage.

Just think on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hmmm...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

you guys (Baldie, Hunter) are taking an incredible risk contradicting the Game Master himself!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Don't you want to play on Warclouds server anymore? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Takata <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 03:12 PM
Its prolly gone Ivan. It was a looong time ago.

I'm glad to see that threae again. I was about to redo all that math to calculate "best-case" net speed value (3780)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 04:17 PM
Baldie

Why not post your findings. Would be more beneficial to all of use if you contributed your testing and findings.

SPaRX

Recon_609IAP
12-29-2004, 04:44 PM
If my setup is bad, why do I ONLY experience this major pause fest on the WC server and servers similiar setup*?

But, I mean, if you have no problem, and all other 48 outa 50 guys have no problem - then let me ask:

(1) are you experiencing great play because you have adjusted your network speed?
or
(2) doesn't seem to matter, you either get good play or not so good play?

As far as I know, I could be 40 hops from the WC server and you are 2.

I don't think Netspeed is going to help either one of us out if that is the case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (ie. some I know hosted a server and didn't play well for me, later he told me there was a routing issue and it affected some but not all.)

I do know that when I play on Hunters for example I get no lag. Let's talk differences:
1. Hunter doesn't run server utilities
2. Hunter has max of more like 30 vs 50 people
3. I suspect he has higher bandwidth and server resources
4. He keeps the plane type numbers down
5. He picks smaller maps to fly on that are more suitable to dogfight action

*The number one issue for playability IMO from my experience is those running some sort of FBDaemon vs. those that aren't. Knowing this, why would I go tamper with my netspeed when 90% of the servers I fly on don't run these tools and play is great?

(I have 2500+ AMD, 1 Gig corsair, cable 1.5 down, 384 up, ATI 9800 Pro. Typically avg 40-80 frames online, at times 130 fps when looking up)

Recon_609IAP
12-29-2004, 04:56 PM
"Baldie

Why not post your findings. Would be more beneficial to all of use if you contributed your testing and findings.

SPaRX"

Agreed.

And Sparx - please don't take my comments as a negative on you at all - I fully respect you hosting a server for our community.

Personally, I'd like to fly on it - but honestly it just never seems to play well for me.

I do think if you tried some of these suggestions, I'd be curious to see if it improved the play for people like me. ie. try turning off the server tool and setting max pilots to like 30.

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
Baldie

Why not post your findings. Would be more beneficial to all of use if you contributed your testing and findings.

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have posted my findings: don't run high net speeds on the server unless you just want something to complain about.

You could get away with 3780* because most everyone has 56k or higher, and the spread from 2000 isn't bad enough to cause too many problems. However, you will still see hiccups when there is a furball, and the larger the furball, the worse it gets. Throw in ONE player with certain settings and you get far more lag than necessary. Setting high net speeds allows this one player to negatively impact all players connection.

*I accounted for packet overhead, average 56k line conditions, and the true upload speed of 56k modems when I calculated this value. Its a good safe number but does not make your server immune. The only way to run higher net speeds without lag/ exploitation is to get the server off HL.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 05:24 PM
Baldie, i am not talking about your "impressions", i am asking to see your hard data. But let me make a few comments on what you are saying in your last post.

What you are saying is that the optimal upstream of a 56k modem is 3750kbps. I 100% agree with you on that. What I am saying in my posts is that by setting your netspeed to 5000, you are within this limit. I have run a bandwidth monitor while flying on the server with various player numbers ranging from 30-50 and i have not seen my upstream go over 3000kbps. This is what i am trying to get across here. The upstream is not the issue at hand. Its the downstream. People are not opening up their connections enough to RECEIVE enough data in a timely manner to keep them in sync. By leaving your netspeed set at 3000 or 2000, you are allowing the server to only send you that much data, when in fact it needs to send you more data to keep you in sync.

Basically in a nutshell this is what i am trying to get across. By setting your netspeed to 5000, you are allowing the server to send you approx 56k worth of data and you to send the server 28.8k worth of data. For a broadband user, this should be NO problem at all. If a broadband user cannot "sustain" these vaulues, then they really need to consult their ISP as to why. Am i saying a 56k user can play on a server with a 5000 netspeed with 50 players. Theoretically yes, in reality no. We all know that dialup connections are not know for their sustained data rate. But i am not running the server for dialup users. I have stated before and i will state it again, if you are on a dialup, IMHO you should not be playing on a server with more then 20 players on it. I say that because i feel a server with 20 or less players on it can reduce their netspeeds to 3000 (28.8k) and have a good running server. This to me is more realistic for a dialup player. At a 3000 netspeed, the upstream from teh client is typically around 1.5k and the down stream is around 3k. These numbers are better suited for dialup players.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter82:
Just tested this on your server Sparx with 43 players in.

@ 3000 usage up was 1.47 kb 2.97kb down

@ 8000 usage up was 2.67 and 6.07 down

as you can see both speeds are increased when net speed is changed.

Having too high a sustained upload/download is asking for trouble.

We could debate this forever so I'll just have to get with you on TS one night and we can brow beat eachother http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see here, Hunter is validating what i have said. When you set your netspeed to 8000, which by the way was actually 5000 because that is what i have the server maxed at, you will still have not gone past what Baldie has said is 'optimal' for a 56k user.

I really do not know what else to post guys. I have stated my views on this pretty clearly as far as i can tell. If there is something i am not making clear, please, ask me about it.

SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 07:28 PM
Why ask people to set thier speed to 8000 if the server only allows a max of 5000?

It just defies logic.

Listen, go talk to Jiri [about upping the default net speed] or take your server off HL. It really is that simple.

As a network engineer for the 3rd largest broadband ISP, my profesional opinion is that you ask too much of the internet.

clint-ruin
12-29-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Why ask people to set thier speed to 8000 if the server only allows a max of 5000?

It just defies logic.

Listen, go talk to Jiri [about upping the default net speed] or take your server off HL. It really is that simple.

As a _network engineer_ for the 3rd largest broadband ISP, my profesional opinion is that you ask too much of the internet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there's any need to reduce the number of good high-player servers on the net just yet :&gt;

But people seem to have some funny ideas about what DSL and cable connects will actually do for them. Fast web downloads and streaming media are not the same thing as internet gaming, and not all internet games work identically. I think we're left going on general tcp principles until Ivan gets word back from the network coder.

As I said I think it would be best if we could get some sort of log of peak and trough throughput combined with lag and server log activity to see -where- and -what- is causing spikes, and how this network rate setting influences it. Sparx and Hunter may both be right about the 'best' setting, for their own connection and hardware. Mean and average utilisation figures are useful but aren't going to tell the whole story of what's going down on a server and what's causing bad spikes.

I've noticed that a few people have mentioned problematic australian connections. Almost no internet service providers in this country offer complete "unlimited" broadband services for home users anymore, unless you pay per meg. Some of these "broadband" connections are either traffic shaped during peak hours or for any non HTTP or streaming related ports, or capped to ISDN or dialup speeds after a certain amount of activity during a month. I'm sure similar situations exist elsewhere in the world too. Latency is not solely indicative of total bandwidth, and max theoretical bandwidth indicates nothing about the path to the server or what's in between.

clint-ruin
12-29-2004, 07:55 PM
One other thing that maybe deserves its own post - if any of your are curious about what kind of behind-the-scenes activity is going on with your provider, check:

http://www.dslreports.com/

For US users,

http://whirlpool.net.au

For australian users.

Anyone in the UK or europe have any to add to that for home user information on what the big trunks are doing?

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 08:17 PM
To answer your question bout why i ask people to set their netspeeds to 8000. Pretty simple answer. This gives me the ability to make changes in the servers netspeed to do some testing. Since the server sets the max speed, this leaves me the ability to raise and lower the settings as needed.

I fail to see why you think HL has any influence on IL2. It is just a game launcher. It passes a command line via the executable to start your session for you and passing the ip, port and other relavent information needed to connect to the server you have choosen. After is does this, HL does nothing else but use memory resources.

But these two things are not what we are discussion here. Let me recap what has been stated in this thread so far.

Baldie: you state that the "optimal" upstream for a 56k user is 3750kbps. I agree with this. From what i have read, Hunter agrees with this.

Hunter posts data that shows setting your netspeed from 3000 to 8000 does not increase your upstream bandwidth above this 3750kbps limit.

Packetloss is the biggest contributing factor to lags/stutters. We all agree on this.

What i fail to understand is what part of my posts you guys are disagreeing with. I asked people to set their netspeeds to achieve the highest 'optimal' upstream. This is done by increasing your netspeed settings. By setting your netspeeds to 5000 will not cause you to go over this value. And this is for 56k dialups. We are not even talking about broadband users. And again, i say if you cannot sustain over 5k/sec upstream from your broadband connection, you need to contact your ISP. I have sent video files to my family that are well over 500megs and sustained 40k/sec sending them for hours on end. So i fail to understand why its unfeasible to expect them to sustain 3k/sec while playing on the server. You all have done nothing in my eyes but to validate my findings.

I have already stated that not everyone will be able to play on every server. It all boils down to the quality of your connection to the server. If your route to the server has large amounts of packetloss to the server, you will not have smooth gameplay on that server. Your ping to the server has no bearing on this. You can have a 10ms ping to a server and still drop 25% of your packets going to the sever. The "best" settings i am stating are not unreasonable for anyones broadband connection. I have yet to come across anyone that can not sustain atleast 10k/sec consistantly on thier upstream.

So I guess what I want to know is this, if what i am posting here is wrong, then why is it wrong. You all keep telling me its not correct and giving me data and input that does nothing but validate my statements.

In my PROFESSIONAL opinion, you expect to little of the internet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 08:33 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">HL sets the net speed to 2k. </span>

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 08:36 PM
What are you saying? HL sets the server or the clients netspeed? This is not a HARD CODED setting. It is a configurable setting. So its as simple as changing the default. SIMPLE!

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 08:41 PM
Hey, its been changed since il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
[Forgotten Battles]
joinDelay=20
clientRate=3000
;Determine the client source port. Useful when is more that one user behind the NAT router.
;Must be diferent for each user behind the same NAT router
localPort=21000
;This detecting right IP address for systems with more that one network adapters
;Default is 1 (on)
DetectLocalIP = 1
Order=20
</pre>

So set it to 3000 and forget it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So have all your pals up to 5000 and then suffer when Default_FlyGuy joins via HL.

Then you can get mad about the *****ing and post another of these tail-chaser threads. Yay.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 08:55 PM
You just do not get it. The reason for this thread is to INFORM people. So that they can make these changes. Then when Default_FlyGuy joins a server and starts complaining bout his lags/stutters, then an INFORMED community member can HELP him with this. That is NOT a HARDCODED setting. We have people going into their config files every D A M N E D day to make graphic changes, why is this any differnt. Another factor you are failing to realize is this. If 90% of the players are running these settings, then the AMOUNT of lag/stutters is greatly reduced. Its all bout the fractions. Fractions rule the world. If More people are lagggin/stuttering, then there is more lag/stutters. If less people are lagging/stuttering, then there is less lag. Simple rules of logic.

I am sorry Baldie, but you have totally missed the entire point of this thread. You are doing nothing but talking in circles and making no sense at all. The INTENTION of this thread is to INFORM the community that a netspeed of 3000 is not suitable for a server that has 50 or more players and to INFORM them on how to make these changes. If you wish to play on a server that has a large number of players, then these changes need to be made. Plain and simple. No frills, no tail chasing. The only one chasing his tail here is you.

I can see your attention span is as small as your posts. If you would read my opening post in this thread, i have already stated most of what you have posted. Yay http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SPaRX

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 09:11 PM
I tried your server at 3000, 5000, and 8000. I get lag on all of them, but 3000 seemed like the least lag.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 09:19 PM
BuzzU

As I stated above. Its all about the fractions. We are not going to see a difference untill the majority of the players on the server have made these changes. I just checked the server and at this moment, only 15% of the players are running at a netspeed of 5000. That is not enough to make a difference. More players creating lag, more lag we will have. Less players creating lag, less lag we will have. Its not going to change till more people start making these changes.

SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
I tried your server at 3000, 5000, and 8000. I get lag on all of them, but 3000 seemed like the least lag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a reason for these results, but since my attention span is as small as my posts, I don't recall what it was.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

RAF_Hollywood
12-29-2004, 09:20 PM
I have a headache! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 09:21 PM
Yes Balie and that reason is: read my above post.

RAF_Hollywood
12-29-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF_Hollywood:
I have a headache! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
BuzzU

As I stated above. Its all about the fractions. We are not going to see a difference untill the majority of the players on the server have made these changes. I just checked the server and at this moment, only 15% of the players are running at a netspeed of 5000. That is not enough to make a difference. More players creating lag, more lag we will have. Less players creating lag, less lag we will have. Its not going to change till more people start making these changes.

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand that, but do you really think you'll ever get everybody to do what you're asking? I'm thinking you're beating a dead horse.

You say it will only take one person to screw the whole thing up? You'll never get 100% all the time. Can't you set it up for mixed settings?

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 09:38 PM
http://www.gennadich.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143&highlight=netspeed

Please pay particular attention to =FB=Viks post. The second one in that thread. Now I am sure we all are familiar with =FB=Viks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S~

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 09:42 PM
BuzzU,

No I do not think that we will ever get 100% compliance with this. As I stated above, its all about reducing then number of players that are laggin on the server. So if we have 50 players on the server and only 5/6 of them are running at a netspeed that is not appropriate, the lag/stutter induced by these few will not be as much of a performance drain as opposed to if there were 40 players not running an appropriate speed.

Again, this threads intention is to inform the community of what needs to be done to help resolve this issue. And informed community can then help other newcomers when they are having issues.

SPaRX

TheGozr
12-29-2004, 09:44 PM
A question to all why by using All seeing eyes while connecting to a server the game will be smoother...

is HYPER LOBBY causing lags?

I need to know , we need to know.

Should we stick with HL? Stick with it find an other? or it's great because there is a chat service? or the coding is great? bad?

WE WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH...

Running ASE you can actually see busy servers showing 0 into HL ..

Please can you imform us with more details about this?

Thanks for all of us

Gwalker70
12-29-2004, 09:49 PM
its these guys from like Brazil and stuff they lag the server and plus they never listen to the host

Nowotny-88

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 09:53 PM
Gozr,

When the majority of players join a server via ASE or Direct IP, their netspeed is not changed to 3000 as it does when they join through HL. It remains as what they set it to in their game settings or il2setup.exe.

SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-29-2004, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hihttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The thing that the problem isnt in a servers channel, cause even if all of the players will set speed connex in il2 setup to 56k it will require an 3,6 mbit channel. Here we have an 10 mbit set for this server....
BUT when few of these 64 players will set their connex speed to 9600 - server will "wait" for them and can cause lags for others.
But in the future we will implement such a future which will check clients speed, so such a persons with slow speed set - will be kicked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you want to exploit WC server, just open up the HL ini file and change your net speed from 3000 to something fun, like 1500. You'll be untouchable.

Hows that for hard data? I've tried through the whole thread to avoid this and you post a frikken link to it.

Look:
http://www.plantzafrica.com/vegetation/vegimages/forest.jpg
The forest is behind all those trees.

Gwalker70
12-29-2004, 10:04 PM
by the way.... to find the pilots who are from south america... they fly 109's cant fight thier way out of a paper bag ,, and when you ask them where they are at.. they seem to run the edges of the map .. no use to you LOL


Nowonty-88

Gwalker70
12-29-2004, 10:07 PM
actually bladie.. i got better results with 8000.. and I set page file double my ram and it works a bit better

Nowonty-88

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 10:10 PM
I am getting pretty dizzy now.

There are things in place to take care of such things. nearmaxlag and farmaxlag setting take care of this. If you were to join the server witha netspeed of 1500, there is no way you could stay in sync with the server and it will boot you.

If you read Viks' post carefully, you will understand what he is saying. Remember that english is not his native language.

What he is saying here is that the problem is that players are joining the server with their netspeeds set too low and that the server needs to wait for you to catch up. So to combat this, they are going to implement a feature in their app that will check a players netspeed, and if it is not set high enough, it will kick them. Why is this. Because you need to increase your netspeed to accomidate the higher number of players. His suggestion is for 28.8 minimum, but for broadband users to set it to 56k. Hmmm, this sounds somewhat familiar.

Do you need a chainsaw or an axe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.vfs-22.net/chainsaw.gif or http://www.vfs-22.net/chainsaw2.gif

SPaRX

Gwalker70
12-29-2004, 10:13 PM
i think spit 9 pilots all run fiber optic LOL cuase they have great game experience

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
BuzzU,

No I do not think that we will ever get 100% compliance with this. As I stated above, its all about reducing then number of players that are laggin on the server. So if we have 50 players on the server and only 5/6 of them are running at a netspeed that is not appropriate, the lag/stutter induced by these few will not be as much of a performance drain as opposed to if there were 40 players not running an appropriate speed.

Again, this threads intention is to inform the community of what needs to be done to help resolve this issue. And informed community can then help other newcomers when they are having issues.

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it's your server to do what you want. Have you thought of forcing people to use your settings, or they won't be able to join? It's kind of harsh, but if it helps the lag who cares?

Gwalker70
12-29-2004, 10:23 PM
I actually asked my apt complex before I moved in "do you have cable or DSL" to qualify myself moving in.. if online flight sim is your hobby get freaking broadband .. its 2005 almost

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
I actually asked my apt complex before I moved in "do you have cable or DSL" to qualify myself moving in.. if online flight sim is your hobby get freaking broadband .. its 2005 almost <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you talking too?

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Hey, its been changed since il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes

since the new version came out , HL now defaults you to 28.8 K , instead of the 14.4K setting in FB

you can chang this in-game & it still has an effect ? . . . . or is it that when you join a room at 28.8K , your stuck with it ?

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 10:31 PM
Badsight,

You can change this in game. You can do this two ways. Hit Escape, goto the network menu and change the setting there. This is the simplest of the two ways to do it once you join a server. The other way to do it is through your console. To do this, first you must get what channel you client is using. To do this, you type "channel" in your console. Lets say your client is using channel 2. Then you would enter "channel 2 SPEED 5000". This is the harder method obviously.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 10:36 PM
yea i knew you can go into either of those , but i got an impression that after you joined your ability to alter that setting didnt change it

but that was me reading / comprehending what was posted wrong

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-29-2004, 10:39 PM
BuzzU,

at the moment i have no way to automate this. That is why I started this thread. To get people INFORMED. I can change everyones netspeed on the server right now, but it require about 10 minutes of typing each time i do it. Now factor in the number of players that leave and join the server. I would have to do this 3/4 times an hour. I am not a programmer. I have enlisted the help of one to help me with this task. But as he is not getting paid, its the holidays, and so on, i am at his mercy on when he completes it. I am not complaining, just stating the fact. So the only short term solution i have right now is to inform people. What is suprising me is that people are having such a hard time with this. It is as simple as join the server, click fly, hit escape, change your setting, and takeoff. I even have a message that scrolls on teh server every two minutes that says

EVERYONE HIT ESCAPE, GOTO NETWORK, AND CHANGE TO ISDN!!!!!

This scrolls every 2 minutes, and still less then 20% of the players do it. Simply amazing.

SPaRX

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
EVERYONE HIT ESCAPE, GOTO NETWORK, AND CHANGE TO ISDN!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what can you do when its that clear ?

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 11:11 PM
I hope you find a way to get everybody to do it. I'd like to see if it will work.

TgD Thunderbolt56
12-30-2004, 07:55 AM
I went in last night with the new settings and NETWORK set to ISDN. I still got booted repeatedly over the hour or so i was there. I got ping warnings and lag spikes and would ultimately get booted.

I'm starting to be convinced the majority of the problem is on my end. I may have a router that's going bad or there may be an ISP issue. The problem is worse on WC than any other server I play on yet I ping lowest to it. Hmmmm.

Packet-loss = teh bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Recon_609IAP
12-30-2004, 08:25 AM
There are alot of networking to be learned in this post.

Let me make one suggestion to your Sparx: If you want netspeed changed, I think you are in the wrong forum - goto HL and talk to Jiri. He holds the keys to the kingdom for you - he could easily launch a new version that changes this netspeed. I suspect most your clients are using HL.

I suspect if you can convince him of this, then you will go farther than posting in this thread. Buzz is right, people aren't just going to change this - and constant chat in your text buffer won't phase most the people flying there.

The current setting is 3000 - that seems reasonable. Viks is saying the same thing unless I'm missing something.

ie. "The thing that the problem isnt in a servers channel, cause even if all of the players will set speed connex in il2 setup to 56k it will require an 3,6 mbit channel. Here we have an 10 mbit set for this server....
BUT when few of these 64 players will set their connex speed to 9600 - server will "wait" for them and can cause lags for others. "


"even if all of the players will set speed connex in il2 setup to 56k it will require an 3,6 mbit channel" ---&gt; since 3000 = 56k speed, then HL sets it


"BUT when few of these 64 players will set their connex speed to 9600 - server will "wait" for them and can cause lags for others. ""

you are asking people to set to 8000 ? Then you are asking people to lag your server.

Recon_609IAP
12-30-2004, 08:29 AM
FYI the issue to me is pauses on respawn. Play is great when there is no pauses. The problem I encounter on WC is with 50 people playing, there tend to be respawns constantly with in turn creates many pauses for me.

Again, until I'm blue in face, I tend to notice this most when people running FBD type tools.

Changing netspeed doesn't take away pauses.

ExpendableT
12-30-2004, 08:49 AM
I've been watching this thread for the last 24 hours. I'm no expert on networking, but I am a programmer with a little bit of game programming experience. One question I have is:

If you have all the clients up their net speed settings, and you have a lot of players on the server, won't the performance of the server actually be negatively impacted?

You're asking the server to do MORE stuff (send more updates per second) to EACH client. I could see this easily taxing the CPU of the server and actually creating MORE lag when the server starts slowing down trying to get a higher number of updates out to each client per second -- which is maybe more than it can handle without impacting performance. I also think that maybe you're going to have a higher packet loss with your clients.

What kind of network connection is the WarClouds server running on? What are the stats of the actual server (CPU(s), RAM)?

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 09:24 AM
Recon:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/connect.jpg

ExpendableT: quite possibly yes. Noone wants to show us a histogram of their servers cpu and network performance yet which is what we really need to keep this discussion going.

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 09:28 AM
One thing which hasn't been mentioned much yet is that at some point of activity, PF is just not going to be able to compress the network data down into "9600bps" chunks [note that this then sets your channel rate, but does not set it to this number - it's a preset for that connection type]. I think this is what Sparx and Viks are hinting towards but not actually straight out saying yet. The issue of "waiting" for slow players is confusing me a little and I'm not sure what he means by that, since theoretically the opposite should occur. We need the network coder to fill us in a little more on whether we are setting a data send size, a data send rate, both, or .. what. I don't know anymore.

AFJ_Locust
12-30-2004, 09:31 AM
Been doing it In WarClouds Games. since I can rember.
[Forgotten Battles]
clientRate=8000
serverRate=8000

================================================== =====================

Something to think about tho....

When I was Hosting Virtual Western Front with 16 players & Moving Ground Units, (Baiscaly a DF COOP) Id alwayes set it to 14.4k........
And alwayes had realy smooth games !!! Skin DL was off also, Im not sure that this means anything at all, but I could actualy switch to 14.4k & see the clients Ping go DOWN from say 800 to 420ms.

I say we give Sparx a chance and everyone set there connection to ISDN, I just do it simply cuz he asks & he is the Host, I find it amazing that more people just wont obey the server!!! Belive me if everyone does as he asks & it dosent work out, Sparx will let us know.

I set it to ISDN for Sparx & have 30 Ping there !!!

Hunter82
12-30-2004, 10:33 AM
I'll try and post it later tonight or in the am Clint... I'll take some screenshots etc for you guys on CPU and Network usage.... CPU is actually very low with 35 players on mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Recon:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/connect.jpg

ExpendableT: quite possibly yes. Noone wants to show us a histogram of their servers cpu and network performance yet which is what we really need to keep this discussion going. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFJ_Locust
12-30-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Noone wants to show us a histogram of their servers cpu and network performance yet which is what we really need to keep this discussion going. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey this is not a discusion, Its a request from the HOST to do as he asks, I was alwayes good with the Idea that the HOST KNOWS BEST in some rare cases that was not true but in 85% of the cases the HOST knew what was going on!!!!

Cant we all just Comply for a freekin week or so ??? Its realy easy to change it I mean DAM!!

Baldie stop with the negative vibs man !&

Recon_609IAP
12-30-2004, 10:36 AM
clint-ruin: that is offset by HL - at least that is the impression I have been under. I know where networking settings are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


AFJ_Locust - host knows best eh? LOL - is this some inherent secret knowledge that hosts are born with ? Why would I change something that is going to make the performance worse?

Hunter - this would take considerable amount of time, but I'd be interested for you to do two separate tests:
1. run the test with your normal host setup with 30 clients.
2. rerun the tests with your host using FBD or whatever tool WC is using with 30 clients.

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Hey this is not a discusion, Its a request from the HOST to do as he asks, I was alwayes good with the Idea that the HOST KNOWS BEST in some rare cases that was not true but in 85% of the cases the HOST knew what was going on!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both you and Sparx and Baldie and Hunter and whoever are totally free to comment on the proposal.

I'd much rather know -why- these settings are working out for some people [and not others] than just get a bolded, capitalised request for everyone to make a change that is not quite fully understood by two professional network engineers so far. That's all.

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
clint-ruin: that is offset by HL - at least that is the impression I have been under. I know where networking settings are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup yup, but Viks doesn't mention HL at any point unlike everyone else so far. Just what the "connection" is set to. I don't think he wants the channel itself set to 9600 in the console - just at the default 28.8 or 56k connection rate in pf/il2setup. That's my reading of it, could be wrong. Not everyone's joining in from HL either, and the HL, console, and il2setup selections aren't actually referring to the same exact numbers anyhow just to make things extra confusing :&gt;

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 11:00 AM
Locust said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When I was Hosting Virtual Western Front with 16 players & Moving Ground Units, (Baiscaly a DF COOP) Id alwayes set it to 14.4k........
And alwayes had realy smooth games !!! Skin DL was off also, Im not sure that this means anything at all, but I could actualy switch to 14.4k & see the clients Ping go DOWN from say 800 to 420ms.

I set it to ISDN for Sparx & have 30 Ping there !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cool, but what you ping at with these rates - especially from cable or dsl connects - is not particularly going to be influenced by this setting. Physical distance and network hops and the resultant latency from that are going to affect your ping much more here if you have bandwidth up the bum to spare.

For your server where you were hosting people at 14.4 connect rates and seeing pings go down - there is a very strong chance that those people had too high a rate set on their client, and that the high rate was flooding them out. TCP UDP doesn't actually care about transmission order that much, it'll just blast data out as fast as it reasonably can get it to the target IP - that's what makes it more suitable for streaming or high performance internet stuff than straight tcp connects. But you run the risk of getting flooded off or making the server spike if the wrong rate is selected. You also have to depend on things between you and the host not mutilating your data into little fragments which then need to be collated, assembled and understood by the client .. by that time the next update from the server is probably already on your machine and the process starts again.

BaldieJr
12-30-2004, 11:06 AM
The reason why HL matters is because its the launch-point, and default settings revert everyone to 3000.

Sparx can stomp and whine here all he wants, but it wont change anything. Even if 99% of the players increase thier net speed, there will always be the 1% who don't know how to change it.

And its not the 1% who suffers. Its the 99%.

1C's new client limit is purely theoretical. If all those players are within near max lag threshold, too much data has to be piped to too many people. Its all well and fine if smaller furballs pop up in different parts of the map, but that rarely happens because everyone wants to get points, so everyone piles up in one part of the map.

This is all just tip of the iceberg. There are so many variables to account for that it will make your head spin. The best thing to do is just forget it and learn to enjoy the game as it is, otherwise you spend your time chasing ghosts.

skyfox_249th
12-30-2004, 12:23 PM
i didn`t know all that connection setting details sparx!

thanks for these infos - i updated my settings.

Hunter82
12-30-2004, 01:21 PM
Viks doesn't run on HL that's why... IP or ASE is used to connect

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
EVERYONE HIT ESCAPE, GOTO NETWORK, AND CHANGE TO ISDN!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Baldie , how can this be less clear ?

spammed in the chat regularly

Hunter82
12-30-2004, 01:59 PM
honestly that is the best solution for all....when you enter WC set your connection to the hosts request....don't noodle with your settings as 95% of the rest of us do not desire this done. I've tested all of these over 4 years of hosting

Recon_609IAP
12-30-2004, 02:02 PM
At this point I agree, and additionally, I think for me to continue to think this has any impact Sparx will need to show some empirical evidence.

Sorry, I don't personally like to mess with things without some sort of proof besides 'I told you so'. Especially since I've had pretty good play online since I've had IL2 with these at HL defaults.

Regardless, I tried both netspeed settings and I still get pauses on respawn, which is often on WC.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-30-2004, 02:24 PM
Clint, no one every asked for server details. Never thought to post them. I am not hiding anything here. Here is the current server usage details and server specs

Currently 45 players

Downstream- ~350 kbps
Upstream- ~800kbps

Cpu IL2 server usage - ~15% (2.8 P4 Hyperthreaded)
Memory IL2 server usage - 300megs

Total Cpu usage ~25%
Total Ram for server is 1.5gigs of which 800meg is free

I am connected via Remote, so keep that in mind when looking at bandwidth usage. When server is 55+ players, server will hit 400kbps down and 1mbit up.

Server Specs.

2.8 P4 Hyperthread CPU
1.5gig Ram
10mbit up/down

As you can see, we are not even close to maxing out the server. Barely making a dent in it.

@Recon - I have been hosting gameservers for well over 8 years. I know my way around a server. I have been a server admin for Gameserver companies, various clans, and also 2 Dialup internet providers. So my abilities in this area are pretty darn good. I do not like to boast, so if you doubted my abilities, all you had to do was ask. Also, everyone of these suggested tests you keep posting have been done various times. FBD is not as much of an issue as people like to believe. I has some minor hits on the performance of the server, but nothing worth worrying over.

@Clint - Its hard to make heads or tails of what Viks is saying in his post. I had to read the entire thread 4/5 times myself. But in a nutshell this is what he is saying. The suggest a minimum setting of 28.8 (3000) netspeed to the server but recommend you set your speed to 56k (5000). They are working on implementing a feature in their Program that will kick players that do not set their netspeeds correctly.

The servers resources are not even a consideration here. The server is using barely 20% of the servers resources. Bandwidth for the server is also not an issue. The server is in a very well run datacenter. They have mulitple Gig-E line backbones. By multiple i mean 10+, i would have to check again to see as they add new lines almost every other month or so.

Clint, you are starting to see my point here. IL2 needs more pipe to send the data to the clients when servers are running with a large number of players. Trying to fit 56k worth of data on a 28.8 line is just not going to cut it.

Everynight i get on teamspeak and there are typically 20 or so players. Through the course of the night, i will probably talke to 40-50 players that are playing on the server. Almost everyone of these guys have no problems playing on the server. They do not lag to the server. Yes they see lag on the server that is caused by another player, but they are not lagging themselves. I personally have changed my netmessage.properties file so that when somone is laggin on the server, it will display to me who is laggin. And i see the same repeat offenders every day and night. Now people can (in the words of someone else in this thread) "stomp and whine" to me all they want, but the fact still remains that more then Half of the players on the server are not having a single problem. Be it 20 players on the server or 50. Most of these guys have made the changes in their HLpro.ini and conf.ini files. So what conclusion can you draw from this? The players that are laggin have the issues. Either their system cannot handle the 50 player load or their connection cannot. There is nothing i can do about that. Its up to that person to find a solution or find another server to frequent. It dont matter if you have a 2ms ping to the server, if your connnection drops packets to the server, you will lag there. No matter what you set your netspeed to. But at the same time, you may not be dropping packets. It very well may just be that your are not getting enough data to keep in sync with the server. This is not the days of IL2 when most people were running servers no 128kbps up connections. Or even on 256kbps connections. Most every server that is running now has more then enough BW overhead to handle a 128 player server. Its the clients that do not have the connection or ability to handle it.

What point i am trying to make in this thread is quite simple. I fail to understand how this got so blown out of proportion. My point is simply this.

For a server running 50 or so players, you need to increase your netspeed for the server. So players need to be INFORMED of this. More people that know, the more people that can pass the information on. The changes i have asked people to make are not difficult to do. Join the server, click fly, goto your Escape menu, goto the Network menu and change your speed to 56k/ISDN. This is a simple request.

What upsets me is that when i make this request that everyone gets up in arms bout how much trouble this is to do. Well i tell you what, try running this server for a week. And tell me how much trouble that simple request is. I put 1-2 hours nightly into managing the server. Be it applying updates, making maps, checking server performance, and answering the 20/30 emails/forum posts/IMs i get daily. And what do i get in return for it. Not too much. I lost 1-2 hours of my flight time which is all i might have that night. So again, tell me how much trouble it is for you to make these simple changes and check your PCs performance.

@Baldie - This will be the last time i make a reply to you. You obviously do not understand what is going on here, and honestly i am tired of your cocky and lame posts. Hyperlobby is not the issue here. The netspeed setting for Hyperlobby are easily changed. People just need to be INFORMED on how to do it. But hey, i have typed this out 4/5 times now, and you still dont get it.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-30-2004, 02:42 PM
I want to sum up my Points in this thread with this post as this thread has grown and things are getting scattered.

1. 28.8 is not enough BW for a server with ~50 players. To play on a server of this size, you need to increase your netspeed to 56k.

2. Changing this can be done three ways.
A. Change your HLpro.ini if you join via HL
B. Change your conf.ini for il2 if you join via IP or ASE
C. Change it after joining the server thru the menus.

3. You will not see a huge difference till the majority of the players are running these settings. When this happens, then I will be able to tighten up the Lag settings to remove those that are not connected to the server with the proper speed or connection.

4. The reason for my post was to INFORM people so they can INFORM more players.

5. Making these changes will not effect your performance on other players servers as the server controls your connected speed to that server. If the server admin knows what he is doing, he will configure his server to run at the appropriate settings. So you will have not influence on this. If the server admin sets his server to a netspeed of 3000, then it does not matter if you set your speed to 3000, 5000, or 100000, the server will set your connection rate to 3000.

Thats it for now.

S~!

SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
Clint, no one every asked for server details. Never thought to post them. I am not hiding anything here. Here is the current server usage details and server specs
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did back near the top of page 3 :&gt;

What I am really interested is peak/trough histograms of what's causing the worst lag. Are players with low selected bitrate connections lagging out on the other side of the map away from loads of other players? If they're warping out without an increase in traffic being sent to that IP then something more complex may be going on. Total throughput from the server inbound and outbound doesn't really get us very far in determining who's having a problem keeping up with their own individual stream.

Perhaps the problematic clients simply have a poor connection to you, perhaps they have a poor connection generally, perhaps the reason they have a low rate set is because that setting generally works best for them. I think the real answer to this "problem" .. well, first of all is to find out if what we seem to think is happening is really happening, once we hear back from Ivans contact. The next step would be, if that's confirmed, to get some kind of simple script together that automatically queries peoples connect rate and sets it to your servers prefered rate [reversible after disconnect for that client, of course]. Perhaps that's exactly what Viks' working on right this minute, even, but I couldn't really tell from his posts :&gt;

The response you are getting has been slightly harsher than usual because you seemed to be advocating a global change for everyone regardless of their connection .. then regardless of the server they were going to go and play on. Other server admins are a little uncomfortable with the thought of different users running around with different net rates set and potentially buggering their server up with it. That's all. It'd be the same if Ivan stickied a post here saying "everyone set your rate to 9600, it works best here" - you would probably have something to add to that too.

My background is in medical oncology IT and before that law and insurance firms IT systems, and I've noticed that I now tend to err much more on the side of caution with big, global, untested changes than before I got into the that side of the racket. Just where I'm coming from, not an ego trip.

As I said you may well be behind something in your datacentre or having clients come through a particular set of routers that makes the ISDN rate the bees knees for you. Perhaps not everyone is. I'd love to know more than I do now - for sure - about how the server model works in PF. Hopefully Ivan will hear back soon and get us some kind of official response from 1c.

I think some here perhaps need to de-stress just a tiny tad - if anyone feels they are getting hot and bothered about this computer game, perhaps they should go give some of christmas money to one of the millions of tsunami appeals and thank your prefered deity that you aren't an indonesian beach seller.

BaldieJr
12-30-2004, 02:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You paddle your little cannoe upstream all you want. You've been doing it for a year and people still aren't changing thier net speed.

I'll be happy to continue this circular rant with you next month when you come to the forums yelling your demands of players.... yet again.

Recon_609IAP
12-30-2004, 07:36 PM
Should I post my resume before we continue? lol

BaldieJr
12-30-2004, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

My background is in medical oncology IT and before that law and insurance firms IT systems, and I've noticed that I now tend to err much more on the side of caution with big, global, untested changes than before I got into the that side of the racket. Just where I'm coming from, not an ego trip.

As I said you may well be behind something in your datacentre or having clients come through a particular set of routers that makes the ISDN rate the bees knees for you. Perhaps not everyone is. I'd love to know more than I do now - for sure - about how the server model works in PF. Hopefully Ivan will hear back soon and get us some kind of official response from 1c.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing the system as a whole is what seperates the BOFH's from the PFY's (sorry, uber-geek reference).

Games are network applications that try to sync multiple probable-failures. The only way to un-**** the situation is to remove as many variables as possible.

What sparx wants is for me to say he's right: wider channel bandwidth = better game. In a vaccum he's 100% right, but he gets no cookie because we aren't in a vaccum.

The way this game handles client data changes with "virtual distance". If I am on your tail the server deems this "important information" and pumps up the data so nothing gets lost. If CrazyIvan is off somewhere in the corner of the map looking for enemy distilleries, he's not important to the server, so very little data is exchanged between the two.

If Hunter82 latches on to me, and you latch on to T_O_A_D, a LOT of data has to be crammed down the pipes to all of us. Meanwhile, CrazyIvan still exchanges minimal data.

Assuming we are all running the best possible net speed, everything works great.

In this scenario, sparx is 100% correct. The more channel width you have available, the more data you can send/recieve, the more fun we have.

But if RayBanJockey shows up with his trim on a slider, at 50ms ping, and his net speed set to 1500, he throws the whole thing out of whack. We ALL wait for his data before getting ours.

Engage warp drive. The more slow-pokes you throw in, the worse it gets. The more players you have within the furball, the worse it gets. And despite what some people would have you believe, the more control input Ray throws in, the worse it gets. He just can't deliver data fast enough.

I suspect that client-side prediction is also based on net speed, but I can't confirm this. If I'm correct, net speed differences are going to cause all kinds of problems above and beyond what we've already covered.

So, while I agree that more bandwidth is indeed the way to go, I disagree that it is the solution.

If Jiri ups the default speed in HL the problem is mostly solved. But a lot of players will get shafted. You'll also find the dirtbags of the world taking advantage of your better connection. Not cool.

The next option is to keep telling people to change thier net speed, which hasn't worked so far, and is actually causing more whining, so whatever.

I hate having to explain stuff like this because 99% of this forum skims text for things to find offensive. Nobody ever reads long posts like this.

Don't turn up your net speed. Its dumb. This is all you need to know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 12:00 AM
not true Baldie . . .

this is EXACTLY the kind of info i surf this board for

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 01:09 AM
Well i don't even know where to start. All i have been saying all along is almost EXACTLY what you just posted. But there are a couple of things i disagree with.

The solution is more BW is needed between the server and the client. This will resolve the majority of the problems. The server needs to send more data to players when there are large numbers of players in the same area. If you continue to restrict this by keeping the pipe too small, there is nothing that can be done to resolve this. The lag and warp will be forever present on server with a large number of players.

You seem to think that by getting everyone up and running at the best possible data rate that this will open the door for an exploit for someone to use. You keep saying that this will open the door for someone to come into the server with an extremely low data rate and exploit his lag and warp. If you configure your server properly, this cannot and will not happen. You are basically renaming the Screen Shot Exploit. Farmaxlag and Nearmaxlag setting will make this impossible to do. If you set these correctly and someone joins with a 1500 data rate and starts laggin while in a furball, the server will kick him. Game over. Exploit nullified.

You keep insisting that the answer is for Jiri to change the default speed for HL. I fail to see how this will solve anything. If we go by your expliot scenerio, then all this same person would have to do is open the config file and change his client rate to 1500. We are right back where we started. But as i stated above, setting the proper maxlag settings will take care of this. Easy enough.

The best solution would be for the players to adjust their settings. Its surely not that hard. But as we have all seen, i wouldnt bet on this. Informing the players is a good thing, but its surely not the most effective. But untill about 2 hours ago, that was the only viable option I had. This is not the case now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I asked Sammie to code a new feature into his FBD tonight and he obliged my request. There is now a function in FBD to change a players connection rate with the server when he joins. This is not working exactly as i had thought it was going to. I had made a few false observations while testing the console commands out, but what this actually does is FAR better. When i am done testing the effects of this and how it is working to clean up the server, i will be sure to post back in the forums with my findings. But i have to say that so far, its looking really good. The server is running pretty smooth now. But i want to do some more hard testing before i post what this is doing and how its working.

Baldie, its nice to see you finally come outright and say that you agree with what i have been stating all along. Whether you think that its the right solution is neither here nor there. It is still the only solution to get a server with that may players to run smooth. What I did find offensive is that you were so dead set in trying to discredit what i was saying, yet you and hunter both would post information that did nothing but validate my statements. Maybe next time instead of coming at someone with those brash and off the cuff statements you post all the time, how bout having a logical and rational discussion.

Anyway, I am pretty sure i have most of this lag/stutter issue taken care of. Now its just finding the sweetspot for some of the settings. It does not matter on Warclouds is you set your speed at 28.8, 56k, ISDN or Cable. So for those of you that do not wish to messs with your settings, dont worry bout it. Its being taken care of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

S~

SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 06:03 AM
I was wondering if anyone paid attention to this post I made ages ago:

shaping for windows (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=403109162&r=403109162#403109162)

You might find this useful for tracking bandwith usage by process and by destination IP. Much more than the command line tools anyhow.

There are a load of other 3rd party shaping utils for 2k/XP out since I posted that, many open source/gpl based. But this one's got a free trial period, works pretty well, and has a very easy interface.

TgD Thunderbolt56
12-31-2004, 06:51 AM
I updated my router firmware last night and set my settings according to SparX's suggestions. The night before I was getting kicked every 5 min...literally. I flew last night for about an hour (not long, I know) and had some minor stutter and spawn-lag, but didn't get booted once.

I'll need to run some more tests myself (an extended session on WC) to see if the new router I bought is even necessary.

After flying WC, I went to greatergreen and flew with 30 other pilots (WOOT!) for an hour or so without so much as a hiccup. I'm not sure what settings Sammie uses for gg, but I left my conf.ini settings as they were in WC(8000, ISDN et al)

I guess we'll see.


TB

BM357_TinMan
12-31-2004, 06:52 AM
Sparx,

Can a cmd be made to automatically send to the command to synchronize everyones values at 8000, or 5000 every few minutes.

I know that you can set it up so that the server can look for a cmd that will post a chat at given intervals and if that comand to sync is typed into the chat line then I would think that this is possible.

Please PM me with the command and explain how to set up so that I can tell the server to "type" a chat every so often because I've forgotten.

Thnx.

carguy_
12-31-2004, 07:07 AM
I confirm AFJ_Locust was one of the most comfortable hosts in VWF and certainly one of the few outside-Europe hosts with lag,warp free games.


Sparx,I don`t fly on yer server but with yer setting I witnessed no warps whatsoever but lags are the same in terms of frequency and latency.

From a perspective of a guy who sets what host says.It seems true that lot of planes/ground objects gathered in a small area and influencing each other create huge frequent lags.Ppl tell me it is ram issue but strangely a single bomber formation sortie with 19 planes fighting each other,either in Normandy or Finland or Midway, is a smooth and fun game.
Second thing,I flew a Jabo mission in Normandy where some flak plus two medium sized cities and 10 planes gathered caused same lag as the 8xB29,6allied,4axis planes plus two big flak batteries in Kyushu map.

I have also experienced that in a 12player coop one player can ruin the whole sortie because when he quits everything becomes silk smooth.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 08:48 AM
Tinman,

Yes it is possible to do this, but you run into one problem that makes this not possible. The channel numbers start at 1 and go to infinity till the server is restarted. So you would have to run alot of these commands to cover every channel your server might see. In just 2 days of the server running, the channel numbers on teh server were up around 6000+. So in this case, you would have had to set up a command to run on channel 1-6000. But as i said above, Sammie took care of this for us in FBD. He coded FBD to automatically change a channels speed when they join the server. And i must say its working very well. There one minor issue with it right now, but i am going to speak with Sammie again and see if he can do one more addition, then this problem will be gone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

To answer your question about how to send a command to the server repeatedly, here is a sample on how to send a chat message every 5 minutes. Create a file and call it *.cmd . We can call this one chat.cmd. Edit the file and insert this:

chat This is a public server announcement and will repeat
timeout 300000 f chat.cmd

Now just goto the servers console and type "f chat.cmd". This will then chat the txt message and then after a 5 minute countdown it will call itself to run again. The value for the timeout command is in milliseconds.

S~

SPaRX

BaldieJr
12-31-2004, 09:52 AM
Near/far max lag isn't the Magic Bullit.

Not that I expect any to listen, but think about it. Max lag is in seconds. It is designed to combat poor physical links, not slower [perfectly valid] streams.

Lots of online players was only valid on the new exe, which we no longer have. Moses did not bring "Thou shalt have 128 players" down from the mountain.

Obligatory "You are right about everything Sparx".

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 10:31 AM
Max Lag is only in seconds if you configure it that way. You can reduce it down to ms very easily.

Lets look at your slower [perfectly valid] stream. You, hunter, ivan, toad and myself are in a furball. We all have optimal BW settings. The furball is running smoothly for everyone. Now RBJ enters the furball, but he has his BW restricted to 900kbps. This is not enough pipe for all this action. Lets say in this situation you need at least 2000kbps to keep up. So whats going to happen. The server is only going to send you parts of the data at a time. You will start laggin because your connection is not keep up. You are not dropping packets, you just are not being sent them. So setting maxlag to 300ms in this situation will get this situation.

This 'exploit' you are talking bout has been address. This came up in orginal IL2 and they implemented farmaxlag and nearmaxlag settings to combat this.

SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 12:50 PM
If sparx is right about how this is working,

Client -needs- 5k of data from the server - can't be reduced to less than 5k. So the real size of what we need to be in synch with the server is a 5k frame of data which has been split into 1k chunks from the server, then possibly further split up as it traverses the net.

Clients data rate is set to only allow 1k of data per send.

Latency is 100ms

If we need to send a packet acknowledgement back to the server, for anything, this gets ugly very fast.

0.0: server sends first 1k of required data
0.1: client receives, sends acknowledgement of receipt
0.2: server receives acknowledgement, sends next 1k of the frame
0.3: client ack, send
0.4: server ack, send
0.5: client ack, send
0.6: server ack, send
0.7: client ack, send
0.8: server ack, send

Full frame received,

0.9 client sends its own positional data [should only take a single send]

1.0 server ack, starts sending next frame down

During all of this, the client is still showing 100ms ping. May still have bandwidth to spare. Server isn't overloaded. But we now take 800ms to get that required data down. This does not show up in your ping time since you're still -getting- packets at 100ms, just that none of them add up to a full frame of data, which is what you really need for your client to make things 'go'.

Things working as above depends on the server working a certain way [I'm not sure it does, at all]. But that would explain why it's causing lag in both directions, rather than just showing warps of other player data to the client with a low data rate. Baldie and sparx and hunter - yes I know this is breaking things down a bit and ignoring other factors but I'm aiming to make this understandable rather than technically perfect.

IS that what you think is happening, roughly, sparx?

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 01:43 PM
Clint,

We are talking bout UDP here not TCP/IP. UDP if i remember correctly does not do ack packets. It just jams the info down the pipe. It doesnt ask the client if it gets teh data. This is where the problem comes in. If the server jams the data down the pipe to the client and the client does not get the data, this is where you start getting your lags and stutters. By setting the data rate, we are increaseing the frequency of the packets. If we use your above example. 5 k of data needs to be sent to the layer, then at 56k , you client will get teh full required data each second. If you are set at 28.8, then you are getting the full required data approx every 1.5 seconds. I am guess that if we examined the datapackets and compared say a block of them, you will see alot of repeated data. I would think that would be in place the help cure the missed packet situation. Missed it the first time, get it the second time. Make sense? Not sure how to word this. So it would then stand to reason, the more frequently you get packets to the client, the better odds he has to keep up and recover when his packets get "lost"

SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
Clint,

We are talking bout UDP here not TCP/IP. UDP if i remember correctly does not do ack packets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I mentioned the above leaves out a few things - how the data is broken down and routed, and most importantly the capability for the client to actually get that much data down in the time it needs. I seriously can't think of any way the client could slow other clients and the server down unless it's getting tied up in getting the full update tick it needs down [and sending it back].

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 02:00 PM
Lets look at just two players and the server.

Server data packet contains all data for all players.
Client sends packet containing data for them.

1. Server sends player 1, 2 data
2. Player 1 is following player 2
3. Player 1 gets data, 2 does not.
4. Player 1 sends his data back to server in repsonse to data sent by server
5. Player 2 did not recieve any info therefore does not update its position.
6. Since server does not know what player 2 is doing, it has not updated info to send to player 1. So server needs to wait (pause/lag/stutter) for that info.
7. player 2 finally gets data updates info, server sends updated info to player 1. Lagged stat over.

What could cause the player 2 to not get the data. He may be dropping packets to the server or he may not be receiving the packets fast enough to keep in sync with everyone else. Other factors could be that his machine is not capable to keep up with the connection. If his game is runnig poorly and he gets graphical screen freezes, then he cannot update his status packets. If he doesnt have a enough memory and is read/writing to the pagefile, this will degrade his ability to update his status.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 02:12 PM
Clint,

I understand you desire to know "why" part of how all this works. I do not have these answers. I know how this works and can see the result of input and actions and from that draw conculsions. Lets take this out of the tech side for a minute and work with an analogy.

We have two people playing catch. The medium of data transfer is verbal communication.

1. Player 1 has the ball.
2. Player 1 tells player 2 to move left so he can throw him the ball.
3. Player 2 does not hear player 1's request and therefore does not move.
4. Player 1 is waiting for player 2 to move before he throws the ball.
5. Player 2 has still not moved left, so player 1 repeats his request.
6. Player 2 now hears the request and moves left.
7. Now player 1 is able to stop waiting and throw the ball.

Does this help?

SPaRX

BBloke
12-31-2004, 02:22 PM
Hi all,

Thanks sparx for starting this one.. I wish I had the time to continue reading it ATM.

Its a subject I've been pondering on and testing as much as I can having a few tools and the ability to fly inside my own LAN on an internet game I host.

I've watch bandwidth and peaks as much as you lot by the sounds of it and I've played with changing network settings. I've done on the fly amendments in game and for me it doesn't change anything unless you restart the game. This could well be wrong it was just my observation at the time.

Consider 16 players in a full room all having the same client side settings as server sides settings.. each one respawn 1 sec after each other (any things is possible) you would have 15 seconds of sustained respawn lag.. not a whole F****** lot you can do about!!!!

It would be so nice to have a server set to the fastest speed and throttle the clients down to 56k and see what happens.. then retest resetting all the clients up a notch. You can then check the difference in game play and bandwidth. Like I said I could easily change my settings to LAN just for me because I can take the payload through the network..

My belief is the devil is in the detail but then does this level of accuracy really that necessary. We are all doing our best and lesat not forget providing our own entertainment. No mean task for the non-uber gamers amongst us...

It has troubled me somewhat but I'm coming to the conclusion that a game that is well monitored can't be beaten.

Nothing can ever be considered perfect...... look at Micro$oft

S~ to all. the first 2 pages have been a blinding read and not a flame grilled member anywhere. &lt;s&gt;

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
Does this help?

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, not really? I think I understand what you are trying to get across with this, but the clients don't need the server to tell them [clients] where they are or what they are doing. They know that already and the server can't move you around to put you where it thinks you should be - just give you data on where other players are that may be old or inaccurate or whatever. And the data other players see -of you- is also old and inaccurate - the prediction basically depends on this being the case.

What will stuff you up is that if you need to synchronise the beats of where players are up on the server in a certain manner. The low packet size just by itself should not cause a timeout or loss of data. It's still there being sent bit by bit, packet by packet. But the complete frame is not being received by the client, and the client will only send back at a certain interval itself.

As I said, the problem I am having is working out where this two-way lag is coming from, where a bad client can screw up other people including a locally connected server operator. I can't think of many other traditional ways that this could happen.

UDP and client side prediction aren't magic, either. Just because you don't explcitly need to receive every frame, doesn't mean youcan get out of still needing most frames to come down. Just because you don't need every ack, doesn't mean that you can escape needing to synchronise the transfer in any way. As baldie said - you can only expect so much from the internet.

Interesting discussion nonetheless and I'm waiting to see what the Maddox coder guy can tell us about it.

VFS-22_SPaRX
12-31-2004, 02:35 PM
Clint,

I am sorry bud. But honestly i dont think i can explain this any simpler. You are putting WAY too much thought into this. It is not THAT complicated. 90% of the worlds complications are user created, not task created. Just step back and look at it witha simplier mind.

SPaRX

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 02:41 PM
Quite possibly, I'm up again after about 3 hours sleep, I'll take another read through the thread later :&gt;

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 03:26 PM
Clint is here more than i am !

AFJ_Locust
12-31-2004, 04:35 PM
Been hosting since Il2 came out alwayes on Cable or DSL Top end speeds

I normaly only host 16 players & set the net speed to 28.8 or 14.4 & its preaty smooth granted there is alwayes some spikes here or there.

I think what Sparxs is saying tho is that with 50 People in the server theres alot more info to send & 28.8 wont allow enough overhead for the amount of people.

I know you guys have been hosting & testing this stuff for years also, but only recentaly has 50 Players been Fesable, So now theres new info to be had & tested.

Like I said I been using 8000 on Sparx server ever since he put it up, No problems here...&

BM357_TinMan
12-31-2004, 05:35 PM
Cool Sparx.

Thanx for the info on how to spam the chat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

When you and sammie get the channel net speed thingy all squared away, let me know. No matter what speed the sever and client decide to run on, it seems to me that it only makes sense to synchronize everybody.

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 11:06 AM
Ok class, I have confirmed my statements through testing.

Please open up your PF game manual (if you bozos actually own the game) and turn to page 50.

Read carefully the section title "Timeout limits and auto-kicking".

Sparx, would you like to read it aloud for the rest of the class?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for slow-client net speeds: after testing I've concluded that a single net speed of 3000 limits ALL PLAYERS regardless of thier net speed. This is about as fair as it can get, so the exploit does not actually exist. If you log the console to text and set up a stat poll for every 10 seconds, you'll get input/output bandwidth and ping time dumped every 10 seconds.

You'll find that even with your net speed set to match the WC server, if one person is running 3000 netspeed, data rates NEVER go above 3000. Ever.

Also, from what I can tell, there is no way to change net speed from the console. I'll admit that I did not spend a lot of time with it, but from what I can tell, the channel must be destroyed/rebuilt before net speed is effected.

So feel free to up your net speed and enjoy your placebo effect.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 12:23 PM
Well BaldieJr, let me take the podium in your "class" for a moment if may. Each of those three findings you posted are infact false statements. Let me first refer you to Hunters post back on page 1 of this thread.

---------------------------------------

Just tested this on your server Sparx with 43 players in.

@ 3000 usage up was 1.47 kb 2.97kb down

@ 8000 usage up was 2.67 and 6.07 down

as you can see both speeds are increased when net speed is changed.

----------------------------------------

Now as you can see, when Hunter changed his netspeed from 3000 to 8000, there was an increase in the downstream and upstream data rate. It did not go over 6.07, because i had at that time the server limited to 5000. And i can assure you that at the time of his data collection, there were players connected to the server at 3000 netspeeds as well as 2000. So your statement:

"if one person is running 3000 netspeed, data rates NEVER go above 3000. Ever."

is infact false.

"the channel must be destroyed/rebuilt before net speed is effected."

This statement is also not true. I am sure that Hunter did not disconnect from the server to make those changes. I am pretty sure he simply hit escape, went to the network menu and made his changes. Even if he did not, i have infact done this myself and know that making changes while connecting to the server does infact have immediate results. No need to disconnect/reconnect to see the changes.

"Also, from what I can tell, there is no way to change net speed from the console."

Also false. Infact you so graciously posted the information on how to do this in your post in the GD forums. All the information you need to make this change via the console is right there.

So maybe you need to examine your testing methods. Because they surely are returning very inaccurate information to you.

And also, the refernce to the game manual is on page 44 for those that have the Gold Package. And i am sure that everyone here has the manual because we all support Oleg. And if you are referring to the statment:

"Defines the maximum delay (in seconds) between packets received from a given client"

Do you remember fractions and decimal from what, 3rd grade math? Then you would know that if you want to set the delay to 500ms, you would set that delay to 0.5 which is equal to 500 miliseconds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

S~

SPaRX

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 01:44 PM
Do you understand the difference betweeen phyical link errors and fragmented data frames?

Hell no. Thats why you keep going.

I made log files using the game. Not some 3rd party bandwidth tool. You can monitor the ****ed stream from within the game (if you know how) and I'm telling you: lowest speed sets the through-put for all. I did these tests on YOUR server.

Don't bee fooled by what net speed is set at either. It can say X but be limited to Y.

I'm done with explaining this to you. You are now burdened with providing proof of your findings. Be forewarned though: A few hours scripting is all I need to produce pretty graphs based on real data. Real data from YOUR server.

Your vision is clouded by your desire to believe. You are victim of placebo.

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 02:39 PM
Baldie ... :/

I understand that you are getting a little frustrated after 8 or so pages of this, but, are you positive the logging you are doing is producing the correct result? Personally I would always listen to what a report from the installed tcp protocol on the system says rather than the game. I don't know for sure either way since I simply don't have the capability to carry out these tests from my home systems, but just generally speaking I'm not sure we know enough about how PF is logging the traffic internally to definitely say that this is the case. I would however be very intersted to see whatever reports you can generate from Sparx's server just to see what they're saying.

Are you for instance connecting to Sparxs server twice and then setting the bandwidth cap? Are you coming in from the same IP or path twice and actually setting two connections rates at once when you change this setting?

We need a swear jar for the forums :&gt;

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 02:41 PM
No i do not understand the differnce between physical link errors and fragmented data frames. I do not need to. Why because i have all the numerical data to look at. And here are the facts for you since you want me to provide my PROOF.

Average data Transfer for the server up till Jan 30, 2004 is:

downstream: ~3gigs per day
upstream: ~9 gigs per day.

On the busy days, you will see

downstream: 4 gigs per day.
upstream: 10 gigs per day.

Starting on 12/31/2004, i have started forcing all players on the server to a netspeed of 5000 on their downstream channel to the server. IE: the upstream of teh server. Figures for 12/31/2004 are as follows:

downstream: 6.45 gigs
upstream: 22.1 gigs

As you can see, the amount of traffic on the server has almost doubled. Why is this? Because maybe the players on the server are requesting and receiving more data. Sure looks that way. And before you ask, these figures are not from some 3rd party apps that you assume not to work correctly, but are measure at the switch port the server sits on. This is done by the datacenter that i am hosting the server from. Force players to almost double their data rates, servers traffic doubles. Does not take an engineering degree to figure out why. And before you even consider thinking it, this servers SOLE purpose is to server IL2. There is no webserver, no files being FTPed. Nothing but IL2 server traffic.

You can sit there behind that keyboard all day long bud, but i will be able to validate EVERY ****ed thing i post. I am not so foolish as to post information and have not put in the leg work to validate what i am stating. Facts are simple:

1. All players are now being forced to a 5000 netspeed on their channel FROM the server. IE: their downstream BW and the servers upstream BW.

2. Since this has been done, the server is running as smooth as it did with 20 players, but now it is hosting 45-60 players at a time.

3. With the new increase in the clients datarate, the server is not passing more data through its ports. It has doubled as the netspeed for the clients has pretty much doubled as well. The ONLY thing that has changed with the server is that i am now forcing the players to 5000 netspeed when they connect to the server.

I really am growing tired of this Baldie. You are so intent on making me look the fool, that you just do not see what i am posting here. When i started this thread, you came into it dead set to make me look the fool. But honestly, it seems you are starting to take that role. I am not an idiot. Do not assume i do not know what i am doing here.

I do not care if you where you go from here with this bud. I have all the data that i need. I have all the information from teh players on the server confirming that with these new changes that the server is running better then it ever has. And that my friend is the entire purpose of this. To make the server as playable as possible for the players. And i have achieved that whether you want to think so or not. That is one hell of a placebo i tell you.

SPaRX

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
And that my friend is the entire purpose of this. To make the server as playable as possible for the players. And i have achieved that whether you want to think so or not. That is one hell of a placebo i tell you.

SPaRX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said back at the start - I think you should go with whatever works for your server [and hunter or crazyivan or viks for theirs] as long as it's not really affecting anyone else when you change things. That's cool, everyone is going to find their own particular spot that makes the most players most happy when they connect up for a game in whatever type of mission and whatever type of server is being run. No argument there at all.

I was wondering if you could post what you've got going with FBD and the automatic netrate query-&-set so the other admins and interested people can take a look at what's going on there.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 02:56 PM
Clint,

Thursday night, i asked Sammie to code this function into FBD for me. And he graciously did it for me. Infact, he did it within 30 minutes of my request. My Hats off to Sammie on this one. This guy is top notch in my book. If you goto greatergreens forums and goto the FBD discussion forums, you will be able to download the new version that he did for this. Here is how it is working:

1. When a player joins the server the following information is displayed in teh console

7&gt;socket channel '1' start creating: 192.168.0.15:21000
Chat: --- VFS-22_SPaRX joins the game.
socket channel '1', ip 192.168.0.15:21000, VFS-22_SPaRX, is complete created


2. When this happens, FBD grabs this persons channel, in this case channel 1.

3. FBD issues a command to IL2s console

channel 1 SPEED 5000

this effectivly changes the client receiving channel to 5000. This does NOT effect the clients sending channel. It is set dependant upon their network settings. IE: If a player joins the server witha 3000 netspeed, then the server changes the players downstream speed to 5000 and leaves the playesr upstream untouched at 3000.

This unfortunatly only works at the moment when the client joins the server. If the player changes his speed after he connects, it will change both values. The client has control over both of teh channels, the server can only control one channel. I have asked Sammie to put another function in that will scan the channels periodically and change any of them that are not set at the FBD configured setting. This will take him a little longer the 30 minutes to do i am sure, and as it is the holidays, i will gladly wait till he has the time to add this to his Program.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 03:00 PM
Clint,

Also, this information can be used for anyone running a server. The server admin needs to decide what values are best for his particular server. What the client does on his side only matters if they are setting their speeds too low. It does not matter how high they set their speeds. The server will dictate the max value in this case. This is why i suggested EVERYONE to make these changes. Let the admins do their job.

SPaRX

PriK
01-01-2005, 03:02 PM
I think what all you IT nerds are missing is the fact that even people with broadband can be playing with crappy computers set to high detail settings.

If some Joe is (ignorantly) playing online with FPS dips into the teens and bogging his CPU down it can cause stutters in the client's ability to send out packets while the CPU is trying to catch up. All it takes is a furball, a bunch of ground objects or flying through smoke to get this to happen.

Remember the PrintScreen cheat? Same principle. Bog down the CPU and starve the server of that client's positional data.

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 03:09 PM
Clint,

You can't look at sum totals. Its placebo. You'll see huge increases in total traffice because of packet padding.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 03:11 PM
Prik,

This is already being taken care of thru the maxlag settings. If a player cannot hold the data rate to the server and is not sending packets wihout pauses, then he will be kicked from the server. Presently, i do not have Warclouds Maxlag setting running very tight. I did not want to do it till we got this BW issue resolved. It appears that i now have that part under control. But i wish to have a few more days of testing and data gathering to be sure before i start tightening up these settings. Rest assured, once i start tightening up these settings, the players with PCs that are not keeping up with the game will be kicked from the server. It will probably be a week or better when i start tweaking these settings, as i want to start lowering them slowly. You should always make changes like these gradually. And you should never introduce multiple new things into a testing enviornment as it makes it harder to pinpoint what causes a problem should one arise.

SPaRX

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
I think what all you IT nerds are missing is the fact that even people with broadband can be playing with crappy computers set to high detail settings.

If some Joe is (ignorantly) playing online with FPS dips into the teens and bogging his CPU down it can cause stutters in the client's ability to send out packets while the CPU is trying to catch up. All it takes is a furball, a bunch of ground objects or flying through smoke to get this to happen.

Remember the PrintScreen cheat? Same principle. Bog down the CPU and starve the server of that client's positional data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, mostly correct I'd say. But the printscreen thing lags the computer, whereas this seems to be a traffic fragmentation and collation delay issue. But similar principle.


That's why I'm not really that interested in the total consumption figures for bandwidth and CPU time on the server. Overall load can be quite low but the server might still be missing out on time-critical work, depending on how the guts of the thing operate.

Overall after reading the thread I think our main problem is still fragmentation - both in terms of how the server splits up what it needs to tell clients, and then how that traverses the net. The key issue of synchronising all traffic seems to be greatly affected by this, and I think the way the server operates is that it has no real way to handle delays in client responses that come from issues other than straight out loss or timeout issues.

The beardo nerd discussion is quite seperate from the "this setting works best when you connect to warclouds" discussion - I would not ever argue against what the server op is telling his clients to do, just against saying that it's appropriate for all people with all kinds of connections everywhere :&gt;

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Clint,

You can't look at sum totals. Its placebo. You'll see huge increases in total traffice because of packet padding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might be an idea to hear from the network coder guy just to make sure that the totals PF is reporting are actually referring to what we think they do. Translated from russian and all that :&gt;

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 03:17 PM
Well guys, i have honestly had enough of this discussion. I have explained all I have done and the effects and results of such changes. This fact still remains.

Before i forced everyone to 5000 on their downstream, there was lots of Pauses on the server. Now that i have made this ONE change, these pauses are removed barring internet connectivity issues some players might have.

So you all can carry this topic on as long as you like. I personally am done with it.

S~

SPaRX

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

The beardo nerd discussion is quite seperate from the "this setting works best when you connect to warclouds" discussion - I would not ever argue against what the server op is telling his clients to do, just against saying that it's appropriate for all people with all kinds of connections everywhere :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm only arguing because he and others are falling for placebo.

Feel free to comb through this log file (I filtered a lot of server spam out, but left a few funny ones):
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">4&gt;channel
0: [READY.PGT] ping: 36ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 500b/s
6&gt;channel 0 STAT 3
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2593b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2453b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 82b/s &lt; 2574b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2534b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2610b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2544b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 42ms &gt; 96b/s &lt; 2395b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 40ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2593b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2619b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 96b/s &lt; 2621b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 40ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 2460b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 99b/s &lt; 2636b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 2610b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 2587b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 40ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2595b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 42ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2489b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 41ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2693b/s 0/0
7&gt;channel 0 STAT 0
8&gt;channel 0 SPEED 10000
9&gt;channel
0: [READY.PGT] ping: 37ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 500b/s
10&gt;channel 0 STAT 3
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 2399b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2688b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2509b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2488b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2588b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2530b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2412b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2610b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2470b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2511b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2493b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2627b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 83b/s &lt; 2500b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 96b/s &lt; 2634b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2606b/s 0/0
Chat: --- ECV56_Devastdor lags 2
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 2558b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 99b/s &lt; 2689b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 2484b/s 0/0
11&gt;channel 0 STAT 0
12&gt;socket
14&gt;socket channel 0 SPEED 10000
The availablis protocols:
udp maxChannels: 128 maxSpeed: 10000 bytes/sec
15&gt;channel
0: [READY.PGT] ping: 38ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 500b/s
16&gt;channel 0 STAT 15
ch 0: ping: 41ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2503b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 86b/s &lt; 2519b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2525b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 97b/s &lt; 2538b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 85b/s &lt; 2522b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2486b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2512b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2547b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2533b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 86b/s &lt; 2523b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 90b/s &lt; 2556b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 90b/s &lt; 2537b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 85b/s &lt; 2495b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 89b/s &lt; 2534b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 86b/s &lt; 2486b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2595b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 87b/s &lt; 2561b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2533b/s 0/0
17&gt;chat tagged enroute ALL
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2510b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 85b/s &lt; 2572b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 39ms &gt; 89b/s &lt; 2633b/s 0/0
18&gt;channel
0: [READY.PGT] ping: 35ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 500b/s
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 89b/s &lt; 2565b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 92b/s &lt; 2523b/s 0/0
19&gt;tagged furball
Command not found: tagged furball
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2571b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2515b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 89b/s &lt; 2512b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2510b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2495b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 87b/s &lt; 2542b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2518b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2552b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 90b/s &lt; 2512b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 89b/s &lt; 2530b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 35ms &gt; 87b/s &lt; 2548b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 34ms &gt; 94b/s &lt; 2565b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 90b/s &lt; 2573b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 99b/s &lt; 2604b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 90b/s &lt; 2572b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2583b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 2526b/s 0/0
Chat: --- BaldieJr lags 2
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 97b/s &lt; 2543b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 38ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2515b/s 0/0
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 91b/s &lt; 2555b/s 0/0
Chat: --- BaldieJr was killed.
Chat: --- BaldieJr has been destroyed by WHITE.
warning: no files : music/crash
ch 0: ping: 36ms &gt; 103b/s &lt; 2568b/s 0/0
Chat: --- WHITE was killed.
Chat: --- BaldieJr lags 3
Chat: --- WHITE crashes.
ch 0: ping: 37ms &gt; 55b/s &lt; 2510b/s 0/0
Chat: --- Saromon was killed.
ch 0: ping: 42ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 2554b/s 0/0
Chat: ~GOGAN~: ty
20&gt;channel
0: [READY.PGT] ping: 41ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 500b/s
21&gt;channel 0 STAT 0
</pre>

Channel speed changes? Sure doesn't look like it.

PLACEBO.

Takata_
01-01-2005, 07:19 PM
Sparx,
I've played on your server quiet a few hours before and after you changed netspeed, mine was set to ISDN as you asked.

Stutters, pauses are still permanent, and sometime, lag and warp as well. I never noticed that playing on your server before, never as much, never before the release of Pacific Fighters.

I see no change tonight. The game runs with pauses every 3-5 seconds. After a while playing, it turns to slidewhow for me, like if I had no more RAM (I got 1 Gb)

I crashed my game on your server tonight with a virtual memory error. Never saw that before and I have a dedicated hard drive partition of 4 GB for this pagefile... weird.

I'm not sure 3.03m is working great online, especially with so many players. It Looks like the code is messed up and a lot of people are complaining about it.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-01-2005, 08:29 PM
[Jan 1, 2005 9:51:50 PM] ------------ BEGIN log session -------------
[9:51:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 31b/s &lt; 2569b/s 0/0

[[9:51:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 38b/s &lt; 2519b/s 0/0

[9:51:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2442b/s 0/0

[9:52:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 2639b/s 0/0

[9:52:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 16b/s &lt; 2611b/s 0/0

[9:52:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 25b/s &lt; 2435b/s 0/0

[9:52:10 PM] 8&gt;channel 0 SPEED 5000

[9:52:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 20b/s &lt; 2497b/s 0/0

[9:52:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 58ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2559b/s 0/0

[9:52:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2580b/s 0/0

[9:52:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 2581b/s 0/0

[9:52:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2489b/s 0/0

[9:52:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 31b/s &lt; 2582b/s 0/0

[9:52:28 PM] 9&gt;channel

[9:52:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 2501b/s 0/0

[9:52:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 16b/s &lt; 2568b/s 0/0

[9:52:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 28b/s &lt; 2632b/s 0/0

[9:52:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 25b/s &lt; 2586b/s 0/0

[9:52:40 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2414b/s 0/0

[9:52:43 PM] 10&gt;channel 0 SPEED 900

[9:52:43 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 20b/s &lt; 2575b/s 0/0

[9:52:46 PM] 11&gt;channel

[9:52:46 PM] 0: [READY.PGT] ping: 55ms timeout: 0/131s speed: 900b/s
[9:52:46 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 8b/s &lt; 445b/s 0/0

[9:52:49 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 519b/s 0/0

[9:52:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 14b/s &lt; 526b/s 0/0

[9:52:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 510b/s 0/0

[9:52:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 509b/s 0/0

[9:53:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 12b/s &lt; 442b/s 0/0

[9:53:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 10b/s &lt; 489b/s 0/0

[9:53:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 58ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 488b/s 0/0

[9:53:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 136ms &gt; 8b/s &lt; 495b/s 0/0

[9:53:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 107ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 529b/s 0/0

[9:53:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 99ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 490b/s 0/0

[9:53:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 88ms &gt; 10b/s &lt; 450b/s 0/0

[9:53:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 79ms &gt; 13b/s &lt; 514b/s 0/0

[9:53:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 74ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 513b/s 0/0

[9:53:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 69ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 502b/s 0/0

[9:53:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 66ms &gt; 14b/s &lt; 502b/s 0/0

[9:53:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 63ms &gt; 10b/s &lt; 436b/s 0/0

[9:53:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 61ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 507b/s 0/0

[9:53:40 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 528b/s 0/0

[9:53:43 PM] ch 0: ping: 58ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 505b/s 0/0

[9:53:46 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 518b/s 0/0

[9:53:49 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 10b/s &lt; 499b/s 0/0

[9:53:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 497b/s 0/0

[9:53:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 485b/s 0/0

[9:53:57 PM] 12&gt;channel 0 SPEED 8000
[9:53:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 67ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 1426b/s 0/0

[9:54:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 60ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 2502b/s 0/0

[9:54:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2549b/s 0/0

[9:54:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2545b/s 0/0

[9:54:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2605b/s 0/0

[9:54:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 22b/s &lt; 2562b/s 0/0

[9:54:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 28b/s &lt; 2491b/s 0/0

[9:54:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2560b/s 0/0

[9:54:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2587b/s 0/0

[9:54:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 28b/s &lt; 2477b/s 0/0

[9:54:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2569b/s 0/0

[9:54:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 2608b/s 0/0

[9:54:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 25b/s &lt; 2557b/s 0/0

[9:54:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 60ms &gt; 30b/s &lt; 2477b/s 0/0

[9:54:40 PM] ch 0: ping: 64ms &gt; 25b/s &lt; 2641b/s 0/0

[9:54:43 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 2556b/s 0/0

[9:54:44 PM] 13&gt;channel 0 SPEED 500
[9:54:46 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 12b/s &lt; 590b/s 0/0

[9:54:49 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 294b/s 0/0

[9:54:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 224b/s 0/0

[9:54:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 302b/s 0/0

[9:54:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 273b/s 0/0

[9:55:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 9b/s &lt; 301b/s 0/0

[9:55:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 296b/s 0/0

[9:55:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 11b/s &lt; 232b/s 1/6

[9:55:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 9b/s &lt; 307b/s 0/0

[9:55:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 8b/s &lt; 297b/s 0/0

[9:55:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 288b/s 0/0

[9:55:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 5b/s &lt; 239b/s 0/0

[9:55:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 10b/s &lt; 311b/s 0/0

[9:55:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 302b/s 0/0

[9:55:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 5b/s &lt; 218b/s 0/0

[9:55:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 8b/s &lt; 289b/s 0/0

[9:55:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 307b/s 0/0

[9:55:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 284b/s 0/0

[9:55:40 PM] ch 0: ping: 58ms &gt; 6b/s &lt; 290b/s 0/0

[9:55:41 PM] 14&gt;channel 0 SPEED 10000
[9:55:43 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 31b/s &lt; 2031b/s 0/0

[9:55:46 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2575b/s 0/0

[9:55:49 PM] ch 0: ping: 80ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2505b/s 0/0

[9:55:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 63ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2487b/s 0/0

[9:55:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2538b/s 0/0

[9:55:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 64ms &gt; 16b/s &lt; 2492b/s 0/0

[9:56:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 62ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 2509b/s 0/0

[9:56:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 58ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2479b/s 0/0

[9:56:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 20b/s &lt; 2496b/s 0/0

[9:56:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 77ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 2490b/s 0/0

[9:56:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 64ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 2633b/s 0/0

[9:56:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 23b/s &lt; 2568b/s 0/0

[9:56:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 2490b/s 0/0

[9:56:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 2507b/s 0/0

[9:56:24 PM] 15&gt;channel 0 SPEED 3000

[9:56:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 29b/s &lt; 2013b/s 0/0

[9:56:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 18b/s &lt; 1635b/s 0/0

[9:56:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 65ms &gt; 17b/s &lt; 1586b/s 0/0

[9:56:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 62ms &gt; 20b/s &lt; 1624b/s 0/0

[9:56:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 57ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 1577b/s 0/0

[9:56:40 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 1579b/s 0/0

[9:56:43 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 17b/s &lt; 1650b/s 0/0

[9:56:46 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 1633b/s 0/0

[9:56:49 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 1591b/s 0/0

[9:56:52 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 1614b/s 0/0

[9:56:55 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 1638b/s 0/0

[9:56:58 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 20b/s &lt; 1517b/s 0/0

[9:57:01 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 17b/s &lt; 1612b/s 0/0

[9:57:04 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 25b/s &lt; 1634b/s 0/0

[9:57:07 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 21b/s &lt; 1535b/s 0/0

[9:57:09 PM] 16&gt;channel 0 SPEED 5000
[9:57:10 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 17b/s &lt; 2019b/s 0/0

[9:57:13 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 19b/s &lt; 2513b/s 0/0

[9:57:16 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2613b/s 0/0

[9:57:19 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 2421b/s 0/0

[9:57:22 PM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 16b/s &lt; 2637b/s 0/0

[9:57:25 PM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 26b/s &lt; 2615b/s 0/0

[9:57:28 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 15b/s &lt; 2441b/s 0/0

[9:57:31 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 13b/s &lt; 2569b/s 0/0

[9:57:34 PM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 28b/s &lt; 2519b/s 0/0

[9:57:37 PM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 16b/s &lt; 2410b/s 0/0

[9:57:39 PM] 17&gt;console LOG off

[Jan 1, 2005 9:57:39 PM] -------------- END log session -------------



So you forced me to pull out my trump card. It would seem that:

1. You do not know how to properly change your data rate via the console.

2. That you manipulated your data.

As you can see, with each change in the netspeed, the upstream and downstream does infact change. I have done this numerous times while i was testing. Again, do not assume that i did not do my leg work before posting my statements. What i did not notice until today though is this. Whatever you set your netspeed to, IL2 will only use 1/2 of that for transmitting data. I would assume that this was done by the netcoders to protect against saturating the players connection.

Do we really need to continue this? I mean really! What more do i have to do?

Netspeed.... Amphetamine of choice for the player that wants a smooth running online experience!

SPaRX


****edit****

For those that are sitting in the back of the "Class" and have fallen asleep, i would like ot remind you that the max netspeed for the server is set at 5000, therefore you will not see an increase in the downstream when setting the channel speed over 5000.

B101UK
01-01-2005, 10:45 PM
err wouldn€t the MTU you use, witch is negotiated when you 1st connect each time to your ISP have an effect on what net settings you would use for il2/fb/pf, to avoid sending near empty packets thus wasted band whith? Or the big-small-big-small-big-small packet hunting effect ----- erratic ping time in game

E.g. if the MTU was 1500 (max for 56k modem) and il2/fb/pf net speed was 5000 then 5000 / 1500 = ~3.33R or ~66.66R% of every 4th packet is wasted space or ~5/6th of our potential is actually being used by useful data. If we then factor in that 28 units of any packet are unavailable for dater that makes a MTU of 1500 only carry 1472 units of useful data, also as packet size gets bigger, band whith gets grater at the cost of latency (ping)

There for shouldn€t the net settings in il2/fb/pf not necessarily reflect the speed that you connect but more the MTU - 28 that is used via one€s ISP or forced by one€s modem device? I am assuming that il2/fb/pf will send a new packet of data each time it gets a reply from the last, so with in some degrees 10 smaller packets a second are better than 4 larger ones.

My self I only have my 56k and my LAN to play with, witch the MTU and tweeking of the IL il2/fb/pf net speed dose have an effect, ie a ping of &lt;1ms on my LAN in games.

As with anything that connects to an ISP/LAN/ect an MTU client value can be forced as long as it€s lower than the maximum the ISP allows, if you force an MTU that is 50% of the normal connection to your isp then your ping will be upto 50% less at the cost of 10% to 50% of band whith

You can also check your MTU size &/or latency to www.xxxxxxx.com (http://www.xxxxxxx.com) or ip# with "ping"

Connect to the internet as per usual, then start "Command prompt" then type (with out the "")

"ping -F -L #### -N #### -W #### www.yourisp.com (http://www.yourisp.com)"

Were -F = don't fragment pakets, -L = Send buffer size, -N = number of times to send the buffer, -W = timeout for reply wait in MS, set this to about &gt;10sec (10000) up to about 1 minute (60000), www.yourisp.com (http://www.yourisp.com) = address or ip number you wish to ping.

or "ping /?" for more info.

MTU = maximum unfragmented "Send buffer size" + 28, e.g. if maximum -L = 1472 then the MTU would be "1500".

By playing around with different size "-L ####" (Send buffer size) you should find the hot spot for 0 errors and low latency.

You can then force your modem to connect using a MTU that you wont at
Windows 2000 pro only------I don€t use XP!
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\

Add or edit New DWORD value "MTU" with a Decimal value derived from your ping test ("Send buffer size" + 28 = MTU), then restart pc for the new mtu value to take effect, reconnect to the internet and repeat the ping test, if the new mtu has worked you will not be able to send "send buffer's" of a grater size than your mtu-28 with out getting fragmented packet warnings from ping.

b101uk

Takata_
01-01-2005, 10:47 PM
...
I just spent 1 hour in WC. Barely no stutters nor any pauses?!?... 40+ players online.

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 10:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Will you stop screwing around? How was your test conducted?

I connected to your server through HL with my speed set to 500 in HL's ini file.

I have another log I did a few minutes later using net speed of 5000 in HL's ini file.

I also took contol data from someone elses server using the exact same settings... two different net speeds : same server. I did not save those logs, but can reproduce the test easily.

If you read the log I posted you can claearly see that I used two different commands to adjust net speed: one command is the one you mention, the other was a bast@rdization of the socket command (which was taken by the game without error). I tried the second command just to be sure all bases were covered. Neither had any effect on the current connection.

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by B101UK:
err wouldn€t the MTU you use, witch is negotiated when you 1st connect each time to your ISP have an effect on what net settings you would use for il2/fb/pf, to avoid sending near empty packets thus wasted band whith? Or the big-small-big-small-big-small packet hunting effect ----- erratic ping time in game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

If people want to play with their MTU size and a billion other TCP options, you can get Cablenut from the site http://www.dslreports.com I linked earlier, or from plain old http://www.cablenut.com/ . It's fun to play with and good for trying to eek out the last few percent from a cable/dsl connection too. Just make sure to save whatever settings you have before toying with them. For the love of Zog I would never ask people here to go toy with those settings in the plain old registry - that's just inviting disaster for nontechnical types :&gt;

Cablenut can use a bunch of predefined connection type options [T3, 56k, DSL 512/256, Cable 1000/128, etc] which makes things nice and easy too.

BaldieJr
01-01-2005, 11:09 PM
Quick note on MTU:

I've been in quite a few routers around the US, including lots of cores. Hardly anyone adjusts MTU.

There is still a few owner/operator ISP's out there with tweakers at the helm. They sometimes mess with MTU but its pretty rare. I don't think i've seen it anywhere outside of dial-up though.

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Quick note on MTU:

I've been in quite a few routers around the US, including lots of cores. Hardly anyone adjusts MTU.

There is still a few owner/operator ISP's out there with tweakers at the helm. They sometimes mess with MTU but its pretty rare. I don't think i've seen it anywhere outside of dial-up though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never known any australian ISPs to do that either. But there are other options [rwin/bla bla] that can also have an effect. Even different types of apps will have different behaviour with some of these tweaks. Gigantic web downloads from a single site, vs bittorrent or ed2k where you'll have lots of tiny small connections, vs internet gaming etc. What works for some ISPs won't work as well from others, and to certain sites too. Best to read the forums at dslreports to find out what your provider likes to do with their traffic.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-02-2005, 12:00 AM
Baldie, your test is flawed for two reasons.

1. Everytime you connect to the server, it changes your downstream speed to 5000. So when you connected at 500, the server forced you to 5000. When you connected at 5000, you were already at the correct speed. You cannot check your downstream speed from your console. It will only display to you what your upstream rate is. If you make a change to your speed AFTER you join the server, then you will change your downstream as well as your upstream. But it will only go as high as 5000 because that is what i have the max set to on the server.

2. You command "socket channel 0 SPEED 10000" is not a valid command because you did not enter "channel" in all CAPS. Also, his command does not change the channels speed. It only changes the MAX speed for the channel. IE: if you set the max speed to 5000, it will not go over that value. This is for UPSTREAM only. The server can still change your downstream to its max value.

Look, let me make this easy for you. Copy and paste this into a text file and name it netspeed.cmd.

console LOG on LOGFILE netspeedtest.txt
channel 0 STAT 3
timeout 60000 chat Round 1 (connect) logging Complete
timeout 60000 channel 0 SPEED 500
timeout 120000 chat Round 2 (500b/s) logging Complete
timeout 120000 channel 0 SPEED 1000
timeout 180000 chat Round 3 (1000b/s) loggin complete
timeout 180000 channel 0 SPEED 3000
timeout 240000 chat Round 4 (3000b/s) logging complete
timeout 240000 channel 0 SPEED 5000
timeout 300000 chat Round 5 (5000b/s) loggin complete
timeout 300000 chat Netspeed LOGGING COMPLETE!!!!
timeout 300000 console LOG off
timeout 300000 channel 0 STAT 0


Place this in the root dir of you IL2 install. Join My server, select a base, then sit on the tarmac. Then open your console and enter the command "f netspeed.cmd" or open your chat window and enter "&gt;f netspeed.cmd". When it tells you the loggins is complete, you will have a file in your root IL2 dir called netspeedtest.txt. Post the data from that. You must Start IL2 from desktop and then join the server. Otherwise your channel number will not be 0.

SPaRX

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-02-2005, 12:21 AM
Here is my data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jan 2, 2005 1:59:35 AM] ------------ BEGIN log session -------------
[Jan 2, 2005 1:59:35 AM] -------------- END log session -------------
[Jan 2, 2005 1:59:35 AM] ------------ BEGIN log session -------------
[1:59:35 AM] &gt;channel 0 STAT 3

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 60000 chat Round 1 (connect) logging Complete

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 60000 channel 0 SPEED 500

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 120000 chat Round 2 (500b/s) logging Complete

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 120000 channel 0 SPEED 1000

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 180000 chat Round 3 (1000b/s) loggin complete

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 180000 channel 0 SPEED 3000

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 240000 chat Round 4 (3000b/s) logging complete

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 240000 channel 0 SPEED 5000

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 300000 chat Round 5 (5000b/s) loggin complete

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 300000 chat Netspeed LOGGING COMPLETE!!!!

[1:59:35 AM] &gt;timeout 300000 console LOG off

[1:59:36 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 717b/s &lt; 2505b/s 0/0

[1:59:39 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 673b/s &lt; 2586b/s 0/0

[1:59:42 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 647b/s &lt; 2586b/s 0/0

[1:59:45 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 675b/s &lt; 2577b/s 0/0

[1:59:48 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 661b/s &lt; 2589b/s 0/0

[1:59:51 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 663b/s &lt; 2569b/s 0/0

[1:59:54 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 660b/s &lt; 2573b/s 0/0

[1:59:57 AM] ch 0: ping: 55ms &gt; 622b/s &lt; 3291b/s 0/0

[2:00:00 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 603b/s &lt; 1831b/s 0/0

[2:00:03 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 845b/s &lt; 2479b/s 0/0

[2:00:06 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 857b/s &lt; 2555b/s 1/1

[2:00:09 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 872b/s &lt; 2609b/s 0/0

[2:00:12 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 874b/s &lt; 2548b/s 0/0

[2:00:15 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 865b/s &lt; 2615b/s 0/0

[2:00:18 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 873b/s &lt; 2549b/s 0/0

[2:00:21 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 863b/s &lt; 2547b/s 0/0

[2:00:24 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 886b/s &lt; 2486b/s 0/0

[2:00:27 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 855b/s &lt; 2556b/s 0/0

[2:00:30 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 666b/s &lt; 2551b/s 0/0

[2:00:33 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 680b/s &lt; 2590b/s 0/0

[2:00:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Round 1 (connect) logging Complete

[2:00:36 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 502b/s &lt; 1952b/s 1/1

[2:00:39 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 98b/s &lt; 289b/s 0/0

[2:00:42 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 78b/s &lt; 305b/s 2/12

[2:00:45 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 102b/s &lt; 288b/s 0/0

[2:00:48 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 65b/s &lt; 297b/s 0/0

[2:00:51 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 94b/s &lt; 220b/s 0/0

[2:00:54 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 97b/s &lt; 308b/s 0/0

[2:00:57 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 81b/s &lt; 302b/s 0/0

[2:01:00 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 95b/s &lt; 233b/s 0/0

[2:01:03 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 88b/s &lt; 310b/s 5/27

[2:01:06 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 92b/s &lt; 298b/s 1/1

[2:01:09 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 96b/s &lt; 232b/s 0/0

[2:01:12 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 80b/s &lt; 304b/s 0/0

[2:01:15 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 93b/s &lt; 289b/s 0/0

[2:01:18 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 79b/s &lt; 302b/s 0/0

[2:01:21 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 95b/s &lt; 227b/s 0/0

[2:01:24 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 78b/s &lt; 306b/s 0/0

[2:01:27 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 103b/s &lt; 300b/s 0/0

[2:01:30 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 78b/s &lt; 297b/s 0/0

[2:01:33 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 94b/s &lt; 222b/s 0/0

[2:01:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Round 2 (500b/s) logging Complete

[2:01:36 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 110b/s &lt; 368b/s 1/1

2:01:39 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 176b/s &lt; 527b/s 0/0

[2:01:42 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 175b/s &lt; 579b/s 0/0

[2:01:45 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 169b/s &lt; 531b/s 0/0

[2:01:48 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 172b/s &lt; 592b/s 0/0

[2:01:51 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 162b/s &lt; 522b/s 0/0

[2:01:54 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 521b/s 0/0

[2:01:57 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 172b/s &lt; 612b/s 0/0

[2:02:00 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 174b/s &lt; 494b/s 0/0

[2:02:03 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 595b/s 0/0

[2:02:06 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 173b/s &lt; 539b/s 1/1

[2:02:09 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 600b/s 0/0

[2:02:12 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 512b/s 0/0

[2:02:15 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 587b/s 0/0

[2:02:18 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 172b/s &lt; 530b/s 0/0

[2:02:21 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 585b/s 0/0

[2:02:24 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 524b/s 0/0

[2:02:27 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 171b/s &lt; 579b/s 0/0

[2:02:30 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 158b/s &lt; 485b/s 0/0

[2:02:33 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 169b/s &lt; 581b/s 0/0

[2:02:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Round 3 (1000b/s) loggin complete

[2:02:36 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 281b/s &lt; 750b/s 1/1

[2:02:39 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 465b/s &lt; 1645b/s 0/0

[2:02:42 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 470b/s &lt; 1651b/s 0/0

[2:02:45 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 489b/s &lt; 1580b/s 0/0

[2:02:48 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 471b/s &lt; 1569b/s 0/0

[2:02:51 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 473b/s &lt; 1656b/s 0/0

[2:02:54 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 486b/s &lt; 1589b/s 0/0

[2:02:57 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 487b/s &lt; 1643b/s 0/0

[2:03:00 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 476b/s &lt; 1572b/s 0/0

[2:03:03 AM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 474b/s &lt; 1624b/s 0/0

[2:03:06 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 490b/s &lt; 1635b/s 1/1

[2:03:09 AM] ch 0: ping: 67ms &gt; 474b/s &lt; 1622b/s 0/0

[2:03:12 AM] ch 0: ping: 63ms &gt; 469b/s &lt; 1622b/s 0/0

[2:03:15 AM] ch 0: ping: 72ms &gt; 493b/s &lt; 1674b/s 0/0

[2:03:18 AM] ch 0: ping: 65ms &gt; 471b/s &lt; 1591b/s 0/0

[2:03:21 AM] ch 0: ping: 59ms &gt; 476b/s &lt; 1656b/s 0/0

[2:03:24 AM] ch 0: ping: 56ms &gt; 455b/s &lt; 1648b/s 0/0

[2:03:27 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 463b/s &lt; 1567b/s 0/0

[2:03:30 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 439b/s &lt; 1628b/s 0/0

[2:03:33 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 443b/s &lt; 1644b/s 0/0

[2:03:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Round 4 (3000b/s) logging complete

[2:03:36 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 520b/s &lt; 1813b/s 0/0

[2:03:39 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 682b/s &lt; 2572b/s 0/0

[2:03:42 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 675b/s &lt; 2560b/s 0/0

[2:03:45 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 647b/s &lt; 2557b/s 0/0

[2:03:48 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 666b/s &lt; 2641b/s 0/0

[2:03:51 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 677b/s &lt; 2636b/s 0/0

[2:03:54 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 683b/s &lt; 2435b/s 0/0

[2:03:57 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 661b/s &lt; 2564b/s 0/0

[2:04:00 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 667b/s &lt; 2581b/s 0/0

[2:04:03 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 662b/s &lt; 2598b/s 0/0

[2:04:06 AM] ch 0: ping: 52ms &gt; 665b/s &lt; 2480b/s 1/1

[2:04:09 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 660b/s &lt; 2568b/s 0/0

[2:04:12 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 656b/s &lt; 2550b/s 0/0

[2:04:15 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 668b/s &lt; 2634b/s 0/0

[2:04:19 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 546b/s &lt; 2912b/s 0/0

[2:04:21 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 294b/s &lt; 1123b/s 0/0

[2:04:24 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 663b/s &lt; 2523b/s 0/0

[2:04:27 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 659b/s &lt; 2516b/s 0/0

[2:04:30 AM] ch 0: ping: 53ms &gt; 656b/s &lt; 2469b/s 0/0

[2:04:33 AM] ch 0: ping: 54ms &gt; 665b/s &lt; 2661b/s 0/0

[2:04:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Round 5 (5000b/s) loggin complete

[2:04:35 AM] Chat: VFS-22_SPaRX: Netspeed LOGGING COMPLETE!!!!

[Jan 2, 2005 2:04:35 AM] -------------- END log session -------------

BaldieJr
01-02-2005, 01:50 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8921021952

By the way, it seems that there may be a bit of a bug in the console when logging to certain file-types. That may explain why I was seeing such erratic behavior.

Please believe me when I say: my log file was not altered except to remove kill-messages and such.

EAF602Flowbee
01-11-2005, 08:37 AM
Thanks for the advice SPaRX!

For the last 2 weeks I've had problems. With my fps online dropping as low as 14. Eventually I pinned it down to my netspeed keeping resetting to 28.8k. Then someone pointed me here, I made the adjustments and my online fps went up 250% !

My connection is now smooth, fps are as high as offline and no more stutters.

Thanks for the info!

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-11-2005, 02:00 PM
Glad it helped Flowbee. S~

SPaRX