Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Pudgie on May 30, 2017, 08:13:08 PM
-
Hi All,
Asking the community here................
When it comes to the better indicator of a fast and stable connection w\ emphasis on stable...., which is the better one to use to measure this by?
Lower Ping Time or Higher Bandwidth.
Appreciate any info given...........
:salute
-
I would say neither. Bandwidth doesn't matter, you can play with dial up still. And pings, a steady 100 is better than a ping that jumps from 25-150 and back a bunch a times a minute.
In a nut shell, a steady ping on any connection is what your looking for.
-
Zero packet loss is most important. Second would be lowest ping, but higher bandwidth connections usually have lower pings anyways.
-
Zero packet loss is most important. Second would be lowest ping, but higher bandwidth connections usually have lower pings anyways.
For Aces High, by priority.
1) Consistency in latency.
2) Zero Packet Loss.
3) Ping rate.
The game can handle a little packet loss. It is not ideal and will show up in high speed maneuvers, but there is smoothing code to handle the occasional dropped or untimely packet.
-
Thanks all for the replies...................
Much appreciated.
Just so all know, this Gigabyte GA-AX370 Gaming K5 mobo is equipped w\ an Intel LAN in which Gigabyte also supplied cFoss Internet Traffic Shaping software to use w\ it (yes I know the pros & cons of using such software but from past experience cFoss works very well w\ Intel LAN chips so I am using it to run this specific test as I couldn't identify any settings in my Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router to test this out in hardware. One day I'll grow up & get a GOOD ADSL modem\router where all this can be setup in hardware.............). Besides, Intel LAN DSP's are known for their operational stability (which is 1 of the main reasons why I went \w this K5 mobo.....choosing between BF Killer or Intel where LAN's are concerned, I'll take Intel every time). Also of all the "internet enhancing software" out there, cFoss is the best at delivering tangible, reliable results from a software perspective IMHO.
:D
I ran this test w\ cFoss set to favor ping time (optimize ping time at expense of bandwidth) and set to favor bandwidth (optimize bandwidth at expense of ping time). Then ran AHIII to test this out then after each run pull up the cFoss traffic recorder to see the results..........
The results showed that the setting favoring bandwidth on my system configuration (computer\router\modem\ADSL service) gave me the most consistent, smooth & stable connection thruout vs setting favoring ping time. As had also been suggested, when using the setting favoring bandwidth the recorded ping times were consistently averaging lower overall vs favoring ping time.
In short my results showed to follow what Skuzzy posted as preferred order of importance: 1. consistency in latency, 2. 0 packet loss, 3. ping time.
The only time I saw any signs of packet loss was when I was running favoring ping time......never saw 1 instance of packet loss while running favoring bandwidth. Could this be a coincidence? Maybe, but I think I ran enough consecutive gaming sessions using each setting to effectively rule this out for my particular setup, operating parameters\conditions and ADSL service\Internet routing to\from AHIII servers.
This may also be a result of CenturyLink upgrading their local DSLAM equipment here where I live (had a CenturyLink line tech tell me that they were in process of doing this on a service call when Mrs Pudgie called them out due to their system dropping us out messing w\ her Facebook usage. When he saw my setup he also let me know that he was a gamer as well and he would do some tweaking on my behalf to help my connection out at the DSLAM that services my line.....). I do know that our connection from the house to the DSLAM got a lot better after talking w\ this tech.......... :aok
Wanted to get some consensus on the best methodology to apply as I know there are others that frequent this BBS that are more knowledgeable than I.
Thanks again!
:salute
-
Thanks all for the replies...................
Much appreciated.
Just so all know, this Gigabyte GA-AX370 Gaming K5 mobo is equipped w\ an Intel LAN in which Gigabyte also supplied cFoss Internet Traffic Shaping software to use w\ it (yes I know the pros & cons of using such software but from past experience cFoss works very well w\ Intel LAN chips so I am using it to run this specific test as I couldn't identify any settings in my Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router to test this out in hardware. One day I'll grow up & get a GOOD ADSL modem\router where all this can be setup in hardware.............). Besides, Intel LAN DSP's are known for their operational stability (which is 1 of the main reasons why I went \w this K5 mobo.....choosing between BF Killer or Intel where LAN's are concerned, I'll take Intel every time). Also of all the "internet enhancing software" out there, cFoss is the best at delivering tangible, reliable results from a software perspective IMHO.
Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.
-
I would say neither. Bandwidth doesn't matter, you can play with dial up still. And pings, a steady 100 is better than a ping that jumps from 25-150 and back a bunch a times a minute.
In a nut shell, a steady ping on any connection is what your looking for.
So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play? (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable. Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>
thx,
-Rodent57
-
Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.
Hi Vulcan,
So.......what you're saying here is that these softwares are no better\different than using QoS settings in a router, yes?
In the meantime I've removed cFoss to check this out. I do not have QoS enabled in my Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router.
:salute
-
So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play? (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable. Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>
thx,
-Rodent57
Dial up yes, satellite no. As long as the dial up was stable. Satellite is NOT wired and so is more prone to dropping packets. Picture satellite TV when there is a storm, satellite internet is the same thing.
-
Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.
Quoted for truth.
So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play? (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable. Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>
Dial-up is much better than satellite. Aside from the packet loss a satellite connection will suffer from, there is horrific latencies. I have seen latencies up to 3 seconds using satellite connections. It is no different from sending a packet around the world, twice, before it can get next door, only with the potential of higher packet loss rates.
-
what should I point ping plotter to these days for the main arena?
thanks
-
The IP addresses for the arenas are always listed here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,68316.0.html).
-
thank you Skuzzy
-
Hi Vulcan,
So.......what you're saying here is that these softwares are no better\different than using QoS settings in a router, yes?
In the meantime I've removed cFoss to check this out. I do not have QoS enabled in my Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router.
:salute
Correct, such software does not take into account any other network activity let alone many other external influences on traffic. They are a waste of CPU cycles . And home routers do not have the horse power to proper QoS either. If the router is under such light load QoS is possible then QoS is not needed, if QoS is really needed then the router is likely under heavy load and unable to do QoS properly.
-
That is one of the first things I do when I setup a computer. Completely disable Windows QoS. It just adds overhead.
-
That is one of the first things I do when I setup a computer. Completely disable Windows QoS. It just adds overhead.
Is there any other place to do this in Windows other than uncheck the checkbox to the QoS Packet Scheduler?
Just want to be sure that this is the only setting necessary to disable QoS in Windows.
Appreciate any info given.
:salute
-
So turning this off is preferred?
please see attachment
It was on in my windows 10 machine
Found it under Network and Sharing Center / connection Ethernet / properties
I was trying to set it on for my netgear nighthawk ac1900 router until I read this thread
thanks
-
Eagler, I went one step further and clicked Uninstall on my Win7 system. I believe that's the setting in question.
In any case it's easy to reinstall if needed.
-
Zero packet loss is most important. Second would be lowest ping, but higher bandwidth connections usually have lower pings anyways.
Doesn't AH use the net UDP protocol?
Unless things have changed, UDP has no error checking
and the faster of the IP protocols
Of course I have been out of the networking loop
for about 10 yrs and so I may be wrong :noid
-
Correct, AH uses UDP - but AH has it's own error checking within that.
-
The game uses UDP for non-essential services (like VOX). We use TCP for the important things, like positional information.
Like Vulcan said, for any UDP packet we do our own error handling and packet ordering.
-
Really? I thought you used UDP for positional unless it failed then fell back to TCP?
-
It has been awhile but I recall getting "Lost udp switching to TCP"
messages... was that because of voice?
-
Does that mean my 150 ping to arena is increased to 300 with the TCP implementation?
-
Does that mean my 150 ping to arena is increased to 300 with the TCP implementation?
No. There is a sliding window which allows for X number of TCP packets to be sent without an ACK.
-
No. There is a sliding window which allows for X number of TCP packets to be sent without an ACK.
Unless it's a Mac :D
-
Unless it's a Mac :D
Did they break that in OSX, or just set it to zero?
-
Did they break that in OSX, or just set it to zero?
Safari on OS X starts of with a TCP Window of 1.
Makes for interesting times if you have a web filter system that wants to see the entire URL before it allows/denies you access and the URL is split over 2 packets.
-
Boneheads.
-
I hate apple - they do stupid stuff to their network stack. Like they leak multicast/broadcast traffic across interfaces. For example if you have an iphone on your wireless network, you will see multi/broadcast traffic sourced from it's 4G IP hitting your internal wifi.
-
They have to be doing it on purpose as the stack they start with (FreeBSD) is a really good stack. Makes no sense to me.
-
I hate apple - they do stupid stuff to their network stack. Like they leak multicast/broadcast traffic across interfaces. For example if you have an iphone on your wireless network, you will see multi/broadcast traffic sourced from it's 4G IP hitting your internal wifi.
Thanks for that piece of information. That would explain some issues I've been asked about. Not too long ago a neighbour was worrying about potential unwanted users in their wireless network. A little later he told it was his iPhone, mystery solved. As a teacher of game making he should be somewhat computer and smart phone/tablet savvy... Such things make me think about the "wolf, wolf!" tale.
-
Thanks for that piece of information. That would explain some issues I've been asked about. Not too long ago a neighbour was worrying about potential unwanted users in their wireless network. A little later he told it was his iPhone, mystery solved. As a teacher of game making he should be somewhat computer and smart phone/tablet savvy... Such things make me think about the "wolf, wolf!" tale.
To be fair is it is often reported as IP Spoofed traffic - that is to say traffic coming from an IP address inside your network that should not be there. Enough to give any firewall admin the heebeejeebees. The give away is the destination is usually a multicast address.
-
I hate apple - they do stupid stuff to their network stack. Like they leak multicast/broadcast traffic across interfaces. For example if you have an iphone on your wireless network, you will see multi/broadcast traffic sourced from it's 4G IP hitting your internal wifi.
Ahhh.........
Now I know why I've been seeing these spikes in our Internet traffic patterns........
Got as many as 4-6 iPhones along w\ a couple of iPads connected to our WiFi network...................
Never dawned on me..................
Thanks!
:salute