-
08-17-2008, 11:28 PM #1
Question about online playing and routing.
I have a question. Which game requires more bandwidth to play (or is bandwidth sensitive)..Armed Assault or Project Reality?
The reason I ask is that whenever I try to play Project Reality I tend to get a fair bit of "rubber banding" sometimes. So much that quit often it makes the game unplayable.
The few times I've taken Armed Assault online I haven't noticed this effect at all. Sometimes some lag but that's to be expected I suppose.
I did a trace route to the TG PR server (16 hops) and hop #14 is always unresponsive with 100% packet loss.Comes right after this server:
OrgName: Savvis
OrgID: SAVVI-3
Address: 3300 Regency Parkway
City: Cary
StateProv: NC
PostalCode: 27511
Country: US
(BTW - I do get the rubber banding on other servers as well).
A trace route to the ArmedA server only has 12 hops with no unresponsive servers and decent pings.
If it makes any difference I am on wireless High Speed with Bell Canada as the provider (through a local ISP) and use a wireless router primarily for the convenience of not having to crawl around in the attic running CAT cables.
As a side note , I've heard of system where you're house power lines are used rather than wireless. Anyone know if this is an improvement?
TxsI'm not in my second childhood , I simply never outgrew my first
I'm living proof that only the good die young :D
-
08-17-2008, 11:42 PM #2
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
Project Reality takes up way more bandwith than ArmA
-
08-18-2008, 01:23 AM #3
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
I'm not in my second childhood , I simply never outgrew my first
I'm living proof that only the good die young :D
-
08-18-2008, 01:53 AM #4
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
The BF2 engine isn't necessarily built to deal with some of the things that PR throws at it, like larger map sizes and more complex client-to-server model calculating.
The ArmA engine, on the other hand, excels at large maps with many things going on at once (usually at the price of smooth movement, etc).
-
08-20-2008, 08:06 PM #5
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
Actually, something isn't right with the trace route. The server is located in Fairfax County, VA (about 20 mins. from my old apt.). It isn't in Cary, NC. Not sure why it's turning that up.

LINKS
10th Tactical Guard
Server Rules and SOP * Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST!*
Contact an Admin * Nominate your teammates for a ribbon
Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.
-Carlos A. Urbizo-
-
08-20-2008, 09:36 PM #6
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
Here's one review.
Not bad if you don't want to run wires. I guess the performance depends a lot on your house wiring (or if your neighbor owns an arc welder
)
Oh, can you post the complete traceroute (blank out whatever you don't want to show) ? Some ISPs have real crappy peering: that might explain the higher number of hops.
DB
|TG-6th|Blonov
«That looks like a really nice house except for that horrible bathroom.» Donrhos
PR:How to get started | Teamspeak | Banned ? Kicked ? | The 6th Devils Brigade


















-
08-20-2008, 10:05 PM #7
Re: Question about online playing and routing.
1. From what I understand of traceroutes, you will see some crazy stuff going on. Many times due to the way internet traffic is routed you will see the traffic going in a direction that doesn't make sense but eventually it gets there.
2. I think pr uses alot of bandwidth because the ea/dice client/server networking code transfers alot of unnecessary information. However, I could be totally wrong. I believe this is done to lessen the cpu load on the servers but opens up other problems.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)



Reply With Quote






Bookmarks