| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aloysius Cedric
DUNK SQUAD
1
   |
Posted - 2013.11.09 20:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
can CCP implement something like ping response to the server , which mean the time in milliseconds response between server and client ?
if u don't know what i mean , play another online games :))
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
362
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Server works in 1 second ticks in eve online - most games work at around 30 ticks per second so it doesn't really have the same meaning in eve as it does in other games. |
Aloysius Cedric
DUNK SQUAD
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Server works in 1 second ticks in eve online - most games work at around 30 ticks per second so it doesn't really have the same meaning in eve as it does in other games.
ok, but even that the response time showed on screen will be nice (it could be like the FPS box which you can turn off/on) |
Hyuna Saraki
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aloysius Cedric wrote:Rroff wrote:Server works in 1 second ticks in eve online - most games work at around 30 ticks per second so it doesn't really have the same meaning in eve as it does in other games. ok, but even that the response time showed on screen will be nice (it could be like the FPS box which you can turn off/on)
I'm sure TQ has an IP address? Then it should be poosible to run the ping command I.e. ping 127.0.0.1 ? |
Donbe Scurred
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
432
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 21:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Why would this be useful? |
Aloysius Cedric
DUNK SQUAD
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 22:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Donbe Scurred wrote:Why would this be useful?
useful as FPS counter , just for information |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1903
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aloysius Cedric wrote:Donbe Scurred wrote:Why would this be useful? useful as FPS counter , just for information
The swerver responds once per second, as you've just been told.
So the count would be pretty static, wouldn't it. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3614
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aloysius Cedric wrote:Donbe Scurred wrote:Why would this be useful? useful as FPS counter , just for information
But it doesn't change. The server always "ticks" once per second unless Time Dilation is in effect... in which case there is a "meter" on the upper left corner of your screen telling you what percentage it is in effect (at 10% TiDi the server "ticks" once every 10 minutes). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
362
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
ctrl+shift+alt+m (default bind) has some info though not latency itself afaik. |
Donbe Scurred
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
432
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 23:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aloysius Cedric wrote:Donbe Scurred wrote:Why would this be useful? useful as FPS counter , just for information
So if every client is pinging the server won't that create a lot of unnecessary traffic, just to see information that doesn't really matter? |
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
362
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 01:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Most games will time a packet of data rather than specifically ping - hence one of the reasons its not so useful for eve. |
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy
Zero Hour Alliance
193
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 01:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
I guess it's more of a sync latency than a ping, the delay between the server broadcast and your client confirming. I can see a use for this, sometimes I get an action that starts server side but lags my end. At least this would let me know I am deviating from the 1 second sync. |
Aloysius Cedric
DUNK SQUAD
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 02:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:I guess it's more of a sync latency than a ping, the delay between the server broadcast and your client confirming. I can see a use for this, sometimes I get an action that starts server side but lags my end. At least this would let me know I am deviating from the 1 second sync.
yep latency etc ...
here you go with more details :))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_(video_gaming) |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
344
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 02:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:I guess it's more of a sync latency than a ping, the delay between the server broadcast and your client confirming. I can see a use for this, sometimes I get an action that starts server side but lags my end. At least this would let me know I am deviating from the 1 second sync.
you can use TCPping and TCPtraceroute tools to do this. |
Aloysius Cedric
DUNK SQUAD
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 02:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:I guess it's more of a sync latency than a ping, the delay between the server broadcast and your client confirming. I can see a use for this, sometimes I get an action that starts server side but lags my end. At least this would let me know I am deviating from the 1 second sync. you can use TCPping and TCPtraceroute tools to do this.
I don't think so , example : large fleet jumping through the gate , few fleet members disconnects , no packet loss , ping is same , tested , can you explain why they dropped ? |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
251
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 03:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aloysius Cedric wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:I guess it's more of a sync latency than a ping, the delay between the server broadcast and your client confirming. I can see a use for this, sometimes I get an action that starts server side but lags my end. At least this would let me know I am deviating from the 1 second sync. you can use TCPping and TCPtraceroute tools to do this. I don't think so , example : large fleet jumping through the gate , few fleet members disconnects , no packet loss , ping is same , tested , can you explain why they dropped ?
ping only test lower levels of the TCP/IP stack. Basically up to level 3/4 of the OSI model which is compressed into tcp/ip model. Can you reach the device? this is the basic question it asks.
At the higher levels of the stack you have fun stuff like application layer. I can have clients/servers ping -t all day long and not even take a basic request to RDP into them. Or webservers say I am alive but not host sites. In eve's case being MS SQL based whatever port they use for SQL (Usually 1443 but a basic security change is to use a custom port) this port can be acting up kicking your boys. You would not be pinging this port. YOu'd actually use portqry and all this does is tell if its listening or not (this is how I isolate fw issues on systems before I have sec manager make new holes in the wall). You are pinging some other port that will happily tell you the server is alive. That port is doing this regardless of the "working" ports of the sql server being flooded. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |