Timeline for Net code: What are your expected and max latency and packet loss targets?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @coderanger It's about latency. Sometimes, if a packet is lost, you don't want to wait a whole ping time to resend it! Sometimes you just want to forget about the lost packet and send the next packet anyway. Remember, 100ms latency is noticeable on a fast-paced shooter, and TCP's reliability could cause spikes of up to a second. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 20:23 | comment | added | coderanger | No, it really doesn't. UDP has no place in gaming these days. People seem to think TCP has crazy overhead when it really doesn't as long as you set NODELAY. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 19:24 | comment | added | Martin | I always use UDP for games, but then that depends very much upon the kind of games you're making! | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 17:11 | comment | added | coderanger | We have seen rare cases as high as 50%, but nothing worth testing for. I think the best (worst?) I can remember was a guy using wifi from several buildings over on a military base in the Honduran jungle (which then went over satellite for the backhaul). ~1000ms latency and 50% packet loss. In general windowing usually keeps TCP from sending too much once the link gets congested, so you just see a latency bump. UDP is another story, but you probably shouldn't use UDP for games these days. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 12:09 | comment | added | Martin | I'm no expert, but I usually test with far worse packetloss rates than that; 10-20% at the minimum. Once, I accidentally left the artificial packetloss in and demoed a game with 90% packetloss (it worked perfectly) ;) | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 0:34 | vote | accept | stonemetal | ||
| Dec 19, 2010 at 23:56 | history | answered | coderanger | CC BY-SA 2.5 |