GRAW net code, lag and reliability

[ROCO*AFZ*]

So, no help with the firewall question? Suggestions?

Keep your firewall on. There are a lot of viruses that will try to infect you if it's off.

[}PW{ Postal]

Well i see the lag between me and other players even on the UBI dedicated servers so i dought i will be playing this game if this continues....nothing like shooting someone point blank range and having them turn and shoot you without them even pulling up their gun in my view and yes i am taking into consideration the spawn imortality.

I could see this on BF2 as well but it wasnt nearly as noticable. This is just too much. If this doesnt get addresed or if it cant be fixed then ill be putting this on the shelf with BF2. I play for fun, not too get aggrivated by this stuff. And no i dont mind getting owned by better players then me...i know the difference..lol

[Judge_Recluse]

Ive seen all this happen as well, but only notice it when a server has quite a few players with high pings. Its like they drag the server down with them. When I play in servers where everyone has a decent ping this seems to go away, not fully, but not nearly as bad as the situation stated before.

[th33f.]

yea, high ping kick wouldn't be so bad...

[ToW-Angel]

Why is that so concerning? I'd rather they dedicate that energy and time towards the SADS to be quite honest with you.

It will help EACH of us optimize our SADS settings so can get the best gameplay. THAT'S WHY!

To be quite frank, I'd rather they dedicate time to the SADS than the ingame server. Why? Most games will be on dedicated servers, not PC's (as they are now). The majority of well developed games have SADS that are heads and shoulders above the ingame server.

I am sure the ingame server will improve in time, but again, my personal preference is the SADS development and testing.

Are you not reading me?

Without knowing the bandwidth required to host specified amount of slots, SADS will be worthless to even use until you figured out what worked on what connection speed.

It has everything to do with the development of the SADS files. IT IS part of the development of the SADS files and it will always be a part of the SADS files.

The companies that will be hosting GRAW will also need to know, because they will need to know how much to charge a squad/clan for so many slots.

We need to know so we can optimize the SADS to best fit our connections at home.

Does that clear it up for you?

[Fiasc0]

There is a setting for connection speed in GRAW, and when someone sets up a server it should be used properly for optimal gaming performance. The game will then adjust the amount of data being sent between server and clients. Take note that a server hosting 32 players must in fact have 32x the bandwith chosen in the game interface.

When I chose a smaller bandwith in the game interface it would work better then?

[insane snyper]

I'm not sure what is supposed to need so much explaining. I havent run a server so I dont know exactly what the option looks like, but it seems to me that if you tell the server to give 128kbps to each of 10 players then you better have at least 1280kbps to give.... no?

[ToW-Angel]

I'm not sure what is supposed to need so much explaining. I havent run a server so I dont know exactly what the option looks like, but it seems to me that if you tell the server to give 128kbps to each of 10 players then you better have at least 1280kbps to give.... no?

That's just it, we don't know for sure either way what exactly 10 players would need on the server side upload.

10 players may only consume 128kbs of total bandwidth or it may be 1028kbs?

[ROCO*AFZ*]

We host 23+ players with only 768 up so 1.2 up needed is not the case for 10 players.

[VeLocityChaos]

Bump..

[RAbbi_74]

Bump..

LIMA OSCAR LIMA

[th33f.]

you guys are far off. these numbers never represent the actual client bandwidth usage. you're simply limiting each client to a certain rate of data per second, in case he needs that much. server upload streams to each client increase exponentially as the total number of clients in a server goes up. this is why GRIN is having trouble coming up with an explanation...

for the most part, GRAW's maps are built of lots of isolated areas joined together in a few places, and you might have noticed that flat, wide open maps, like some of the custom ones emerging from the modders, are a little on the slow side... this is how it breaks down:

(a client located at Alpha zone, or in an area of Alpha zone that is isolated enough) cannot see (a client located at Charlie zone, or a specific area of Charlie zone) = TRUE

that right there is a netcode optimization, allowing to cut down on bandwidth between the players. all the GRIN-made maps are _optimized_ one way or another. of course, Warehouses is too small for any of these optimizations to matter. most of the players on one team can interact(see, hear, shoot, within explosives' reach, map position and so on...) with the majority of the opponenets, which causes each client's download rates to skyrocket, and flush all the available server upload to them.

given the bandwidth settings available to us, i think it's safe to assume that 512kb/s could take care of absolutely everything going on in the server with 32 people in it. the 1.5mb/s setting could be disregarded i think, that must be a LAN option or something. simple math then, roughly 16 megs upload is all you'd need if 16 players on one team, came up face to face to the other 16 players, where everyone could see everyone. then they'd probably have to start shooting their guns and blowing things up to get the traffic that high up... in other words unreal. so let's cut that in half, as if 8 people on each team are only seeing a couple of teammates and don't need too much server attention. still, if the other 16 are topping out their 512k limit you'd need a few megs on top of 8.

bottom line: a 10M upload bandwidth server is required to host a 32 player GRAW Domination game flawlessly, at 512k per second per client. i guess you could expect a few hiccups on Wearhouses or like a map that is a field with an open view...

next, if we just want to get by, as far as performance, the 128k setting is the one to use, which is what everyone should be using now. at that rate, the server upload rate will never hit the 4 meg mark, unless the above mentioned scenario is taking place... now, if we're talking about the same game that was doing 512k a second, you gotta consider all 32 clients getting enough action to top out their download simultaneously. so there ya go, 4 megs up is the minimum you could go with, if you want the ability to support a full server.

if we're heading down from there, let's say 24 players at 128k gets much better, but not as good as 768, Roco! my home cable connection is 768, let's take a look...

3 megs in case everyone goes insane, ok. as opposed to the first two setups, there isn't as much "density" on the map. firefights are rarer, less teammates to display on map, less action, less traffic. i think you could easily get away with 1.5M up, except on Wearhouses, of course, gonna feel a little turbulence in the middle of the battlefield... anyway, i think that's quite affordable and should work as a match server for anyone. but again, if you want 32 players, you gotta go up to 4 megs. 28 at 3 should also work fine. that's the math for ya...

EDIT: note to GRIN; we need fog! that would improve things for a lot of hosts. you should know this, it's been used to cut down the draw distance/AOI in MP for years now. give it to us. and not just a map with some fog. weather settings, dammit!

SECOND EDIT: one more thing... the server bandwidth limit per client means a limited framerate, but that limit only comes in play when the client is overwhelmed and needs more data per second. in that case, if the client's GPU can actually display more FPS than implied by the setting, it's capped.

Edited July 14, 2006 by th33f.

[ToW-Angel]

I know that you have a base value that a connection would need.

Once you have a base value, you will need to know the max usage that a connected user will be using at peak volume.

Min/Max and average. Once you have the minimum, you can add the maximum value then divide in half to get an average.

Now that you have the average, you should be able to know what kind of bandwidth is needed to host so many players on the average connection speed.

You will also want room for any overhead; bursts, peaks, vallies and the amount of data being sent.

I'd rather know the peak/burst values, then slowly scale back the amount of users until I know what will be optimal playability vs. lag.

That's what we need to know... Minimum required per 1 player and the maximum per 1 player that a connection will need. The rest is symatics and basic math.

That's why it is important... Optimal playability for 'x' number of players connected to a server.

[th33f.]

I know that you have a base value that a connection would need.

Once you have a base value, you will need to know the max usage that a connected user will be using at peak volume.

Min/Max and average. Once you have the minimum, you can add the maximum value then divide in half to get an average.

Now that you have the average, you should be able to know what kind of bandwidth is needed to host so many players on the average connection speed.

You will also want room for any overhead; bursts, peaks, vallies and the amount of data being sent.

I'd rather know the peak/burst values, then slowly scale back the amount of users until I know what will be optimal playability vs. lag.

That's what we need to know... Minimum required per 1 player and the maximum per 1 player that a connection will need. The rest is symatics and basic math.

That's why it is important... Optimal playability for 'x' number of players connected to a server.

you want to scrape from the very bottom of the pool? but why, so your server would be disgusting to play in? those estimates above already include overhead, though they're probably worst case scenarios. the very minimum? hell, probably 3-5k per second per client for a repetettive set of coordinates and nothing else, if nobody moves, maybe less. that's your absoulute minimum. to play - it all depends. some maps will do better, some you won't be able to play. build a DM map the size of 10 Avenues, and you could host it on a DSL line, with 32 people playing with absolutely no lag. they simply don't need to know about each other unless they're close enough, so the server will only be dealing with a few couples at a time, meeting each other in a fight.

some guys from GS were saying their upload bandwidth is 45megs, but they're running like 6 servers off of it. wonder if they could shut some games down and set the server to 512 for a few hours. when filled up, it should be as smooth as an empty server for everyone, a dream server! gotta be a [idiot] to pay that much for one game server though...

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Theif... our server is on static business dsl. We get a lot less hops then the standard home, and priority on the dslam. The connection is 3mb x 768 non shared bandwidth. Hence we can host as well as we do and only pay 70$ a month. Hoping Fios comes through soon, i know it's in the works here. At that point we'll have 2mb+ for upload.

[ToW-Angel]

It's not about the server, it's about the connection speed. Something I've stated many times.

You can have 100 servers, but if the connection speed and data transfers are not there, you'll get lag.

Think about it this way... If you have a 1 inch pipe will only let 5 gallons a minute through compared to a 5 inch pipe that allows 25 gallons through. Same principle applies here.

The bigger the pipe, the more data can transfer from client and server.

It's not about scraping the bottom of the barrel about the server... As an example, there are computers out there that you don't even realize; your own router and modem at home are both minature computers. Most are a form of Linux, mostly because Linux has a small footprint. Others use the Cisco operating system on their modems and routers.

Still though, it's about how big the pipe is.

More of an example:

56k Modem - 1 inche pipe

64k DSL - 1.1 inch Pipe

128k DSL - 2.2 inch pipe

256k DSL - 4.4 inch pipe

512k DSL - 8.8 inch pipe

1mb DSL - 17.6 inch pipe

The download side is usually a greater value on home user connections, where the upload size for most might be 1.5mb.

Comcast Cable Internet offers 8.8mb DL/768kbs UP.

The question is, how many can I honestly host that will get the most players in and keep it playable.

I won't go into the details again, but if you look at my previous post I've already explained it.

[th33f.]

Roco, i'm looking forward to that upgrade, you should be running sweet at 24 people. might even wanna try the 256 setting. it would be nice to be able to add this setting change to the map bundle file and have it control the server without restart. it is safe to go higher on bigger, more tactical maps.

Angel, your pipe theory is fascinating! each of those pipes has a bunch of little pipes in 'em though. hope it helps you understand... when each one, let's call it a hose, haha, inflates - is when a client is in a situation where he requires maximum upload from the server. in order to get into such a situation a player has to be involved with let's say another 5, directly. so imagine a 3 on 3 skirmish, where all 6 are in each other's view and all 6 go off emptying their magazines... back into the pipe, you got 6 hoses inflated now, full strength. 128x6=768, looks like the pipe is full with pressure and you got no space for no more hoses to inflate! these _situations_ exist for mere seconds at a time but, pretty much everyone in the server feels the spike, and pings go out of wack. so i'd say 12-16 people is all you can hope to host with a 768kb/s, and it won't be extra smooth either. get a bigger pipe. hilarious...

[ToW-Angel]

It's not about the connecting pipes, it's about the pipe that the server has. You are mostly on track.

I'm truly hoping that is not the case with 128x6=768... I'm hoping that we will be able to host at least 20 on a good strong connection without lag, but we'll have to see.

This is one of the reasons I'm so hoping that GRIN will weigh-in on this and give us the absolutes.

Until then, we are doing nothing but speculating... No matter how much we debate it, until they weigh in... it's pure assumption and speculation.

Edited July 14, 2006 by ToW-Angel

[th33f.]

i think it was clear from the start that this is not a home cable connected server game, even the original GR couldn't handle a lot of players at those rates. 1.5 it's gotta be, end of story.

Edited July 14, 2006 by th33f.

[ToW-Angel]

Like I said... we can only hope, but until GRIN tells us the absolutes... We are doing nothing but assuming and speculating the figures.

I'll see what I can do to get them in to answer, because the last time it definitely was not clear. We all need clarification, which will be the absolutes.

Most of them I've talked to so far are not the tech gurus of the games. Most are just the artists.

So... I will do what I can to get them to get us an answer, but cannot make any promises.

[Fiasc0]

I cannot confirm that theef. How it comes that we have to live with the same lag thingies ( player running on same spot and you get shot or no enemy fire sound and you get shot and so on ) on a 4vs4 match. The answer from Jessiejames make no sense at this point.

btw I was reading your post about 64bit OS. A friend of me use this sys aswell and he says GRAW runs well on it . God damn I have to spend lotta bucks.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Fiasc0

[ROCO*AFZ*]

What are the system requirements in order to host your own server at home?

512Kb of upload bandwidth is the required minimum for hosting a server on a full game. The game interface offers an option to limit the bandwidth, so that players with a limited connection can still enjoy the gameplay with less destructive effects (although cover which has been destroyed will still be destroyed), and will not drag down the other players on the same server, who have a better connection.

As per http://www.ghostrecon.com/uk/newspost.php?id=15387

That means it's spec'd to run 32 players on a 512 connection if you list players at 128k... just with limited destruction and physics.

My next question is What is the game like on the higher settings? I may test it with only 4 of us and go around and blow up stuff just to see if we can tell the difference.

Here is a simple question for Grin that shouldn't get them in trouble with there parol officers...

Is the above still true... yes or no?

[th33f.]

I cannot confirm that theef. How it comes that we have to live with the same lag thingies ( player running on same spot and you get shot or no enemy fire sound and you get shot and so on ) on a 4vs4 match. The answer from Jessiejames make no sense at this point.

that's not the lag we're talking about. that's latency, which could be caused by anything from your personal high ping, to the hosting machine's hardware limitations. could you link to JJ's post?

EDIT: Roco, it says minimum. as in a co-op game. i'm sure full game meant the opposite of demo. sorry...

Edited July 14, 2006 by th33f.

[ToW-Angel]

What are the system requirements in order to host your own server at home?

512Kb of upload bandwidth is the required minimum for hosting a server on a full game. The game interface offers an option to limit the bandwidth, so that players with a limited connection can still enjoy the gameplay with less destructive effects (although cover which has been destroyed will still be destroyed), and will not drag down the other players on the same server, who have a better connection.

As per http://www.ghostrecon.com/uk/newspost.php?id=15387

That means it's spec'd to run 32 players on a 512 connection if you list players at 128k... just with limited destruction and physics.

My next question is What is the game like on the higher settings? I may test it with only 4 of us and go around and blow up stuff just to see if we can tell the difference.

Here is a simple question for Grin that shouldn't get them in trouble with there parol officers...

Is the above still true... yes or no?

Roco... Looking forward to your feedback... If you need a 4th, let me know and I'll jump on with you.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Roco, it says minimum. as in a co-op game. i'm sure full game meant the opposite of demo. sorry...

Incorrect... as we have hosted up to 28 on 768 up... no lag. I downed it to 23 though now due to foreigners having lag issues ... who already have 200 + pings

You've played on our server.. you should know...even 768 can host a lot of people

BTW GR1 for us was the same server... we hosted 20-23 players EVERY night with replays on.

Right now the only lag we get is inbetween rounds because our stats program seems to take a moment to process 1000+ players stats.