SEIV Gold Demo does *not* have TCP/IP

Zarix · #1 January 24th, 2002, 09:06 PM

I have a firewall that should be able to work with UDP. It has setting that has to be used during Online gaming that allows UDP and TCP. Although I haven't ever tried it with any UDP game. All games I can think of use TCP.

geoschmo · #2 January 24th, 2002, 09:07 PM

Heh. I love geekspeak.

Suggestion, cut/paste that convo into your email to Malfador. It's greek to me mostly, but it might mean something to them.

But try and be polite.

Geo

robinleepowell · #3 January 24th, 2002, 09:13 PM

Zarix: note further that some of us can't alter the firewalls that we're behind. Work firewalls, obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T cable internet blocked this stuff (they block so much other stuff).

-Robin

Baron Munchausen · #4 January 24th, 2002, 10:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
While I do agree that it would be nice if it were easier/possible to play through a firewall, our experience with testing it on the beta team showed that speed was very much an issue.

With several players (I think we had as many as five in one game), if any players are on dialups it can take a long time to get the files to eveyone. Especially if the host is on a dialup modem

This is an area I have very little expertise in, but if changing it to make it more accesable through firewalls is going to slow it down even more, ugh.

Geoschmo

Speed of the server is certainly an issue. The problem seems to be that it sends ONE file at a time, regardless of its available bandwidth. If it were smart enough to simultaneously send to all players at once and 'rotate' among the connections checking if it's time to send some more of the file it could have much better performance. I don't know the details of TCP vs. UDP so I can't say if his use of UDP is a limiting factor that forces him to do this 'one player file sent at at time' thing. If someone can show him code demonstrating how to do that in either UDP or TCP I think it would be a big help.

And honestly, isn't it just plain stupid to be a HOST on dialup?

Only clients should use dialup. The host should be on DSL/cable or some other broadband.

Zarix · #5 January 24th, 2002, 10:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by robinleepowell:
[QB]Zarix: note further that some of us can't alter the firewalls that we're behind. Work firewalls, obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T cable internet blocked this stuff (they block so much other stuff).

Yeah, I have the firewall on my own computer. Allowing TCP and UDP is a security risk, but I can live with it.

Richard · #6 January 24th, 2002, 11:14 PM

I play a game called netrek that uses UDP connections to update a REAL TIME game. This game deals with up to 8 players per side in a real time fashion with weapons firing, planets being taken etc. As a user who was on dialup I can easily play on a server with no real slow down. Now hosting it would be a different matter altogether but that is due to the amount of bandwidth involved and not the difference between TCP and UDP.

geoschmo · #7 January 24th, 2002, 11:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
And honestly, isn't it just plain stupid to be a HOST on dialup? Only clients should use dialup. The host should be on DSL/cable or some other broadband.

Valid point. Mea culpa.

I know I won't be hosting anymore TCP/IP games unless I get DSL. I think it was a good thing to try though for testing purposes.

Although, even when Tampa was hosting it (He's on DSL, right?) there were times when it seemed that the first players were done before the Last players got their file. And this was only with a few people. Imagine 10 or 20. (Although I think it unlikely anybody could get that many Online at once for a TCP/IP game anyway.)

The limiting factor may simply be the sequential transfer rather than the UDP/TCP.

Geoschmo

Geoschmo

[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]