Battlefield 2

[rustic]

Has anyone tried the new battlefield online? I've just tried and it's frustrating as all hell. I've got a wireless connection with iburst but it looks like its to slow. Are there any local servers?

[Andre]

SAIX

196.4.79.20 port 16567

Works great on ADSL.

[Chris]

iBurst is not for gaming. Get ADSL rather. Low pings all the time

[Razer0]

Specially with spikey connections.. dam wireless crappa

If the latency didnt spike it would be very playable!

[Perdition]

Slightly related...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-06-13

[rustic]

Would apply for it today but our area doesn't have a digital exchange, only planned for late 2008.

Is there nothing i can do to make it slightly more playable? Any help would be met with eternal gratitude.

i did a ping to ibusrt here are the results, don't look to bad to me? What do you guys think?

Pinging www.iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=515ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=671ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=126

[killadoob]

not bad but try to connect to the server even if its empty and see

remember battlefield cuts of the last the digit so you might think yur getting a ping of 11 but its actually 110

[stoke]

Try to ping with about 790 bytes of data to get a more relistic response.
i.e. ping 196.30.31.120 -t -l 790

32 bytes is way too small for a realistic test.

If you get a single timout, then it's going be be a jerky experience.

[rustic]

Hi Stoke,

Thanks very much for the reply, the iburst helpdesk is not even replying.

I've done the test and here are the results.

Pinging 196.30.31.120 with 790 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=274ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=296ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=359ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=249ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=234ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=140ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=281ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=156ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=296ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=156ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=265ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=234ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=218ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=140ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=234ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=156ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=156ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=156ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=140ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=171ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=234ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=249ms TTL=126
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=171ms TTL=126

doesn't seem to be a problem, but i'll try again tonight.

[stoke]

Yowser, that's pretty damn good turnaround time.
The complete lack of timeout's is also a damn good sign.
I must say that i'm impressed.
Catch : Ping uses TCP (Garauntee'd response unless timeout)
FPS Game : uses a combination of TCP and UDP.
UDP = Server sends you data, and then sends you data and then sends you data, i.e. It does not wait for you to say - "gotit - thanks".

I don't know of a program that can test UDP reliability.

So - getonline already, and lets see how good it actually is/isn't.
I'll pop in tonight - use rustic as your character name, and I'll personally hunt you down and see if you look laggy.

[titanium]

Yowser, that's pretty damn good turnaround time.
The complete lack of timeout's is also a damn good sign.
I must say that i'm impressed.
Catch : Ping uses TCP (Garauntee'd response unless timeout)
FPS Game : uses a combination of TCP and UDP.
UDP = Server sends you data, and then sends you data and then sends you data, i.e. It does not wait for you to say - "gotit - thanks".

I don't know of a program that can test UDP reliability.

So - getonline already, and lets see how good it actually is/isn't.
I'll pop in tonight - use rustic as your character name, and I'll personally hunt you down and see if you look laggy.

Hi

Minor nitpick - ping doesn't use TCP, it uses ICMP, and there are several ICMP protocol options (echo reply, etc), all of which can be filtered out at the firewall or router level, so ping isn't necessarily a good indicator of reliability.

Re testing UDP, you can use netcat to set up a simple UDP listener at one end, and the same tool at the other end to send UDP packets containing whatever data you want to paste. Hope this helps

Cheers

[killadoob]

also its day time slower pings ping it after 7 and see should be better

[rustic]

Yowser, that's pretty damn good turnaround time.
The complete lack of timeout's is also a damn good sign.
I must say that i'm impressed.
Catch : Ping uses TCP (Garauntee'd response unless timeout)
FPS Game : uses a combination of TCP and UDP.
UDP = Server sends you data, and then sends you data and then sends you data, i.e. It does not wait for you to say - "gotit - thanks".

I don't know of a program that can test UDP reliability.

So - getonline already, and lets see how good it actually is/isn't.
I'll pop in tonight - use rustic as your character name, and I'll personally hunt you down and see if you look laggy.

Lol, cool man, i'll be there, but if i get my as* kicked, it's the lag.....

[stoke]

Hi

Minor nitpick - ping doesn't use TCP, it uses ICMP, and there are several ICMP protocol options (echo reply, etc), all of which can be filtered out at the firewall or router level, so ping isn't necessarily a good indicator of reliability.

Re testing UDP, you can use netcat to set up a simple UDP listener at one end, and the same tool at the other end to send UDP packets containing whatever data you want to paste. Hope this helps

Cheers

Sweet - thanks for the edu. Much appreciated.
Rustic ... yup - blame the lag ... I do.

[Razer0]

remember battlefield cuts of the last the digit so you might think yur getting a ping of 11 but its actually 110

They fixed that in BF2, fewl