Battlefield 2

R

rustic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
436
Reaction score
2
Location
Pretoria
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?
 
Specially with spikey connections.. dam wireless crappa :(

If the latency didnt spike it would be very playable!
 
Starting to Hate Iburst

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. :p

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
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
ping test

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. ;)
 
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. :p
 
stoke said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

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
 
stoke said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

Lol, cool man, i'll be there, but if i get my as* kicked, it's the lag..... :D
 
titanium said:
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
Click to expand...

Sweet - thanks for the edu. Much appreciated. :cool:
Rustic ... yup - blame the lag ... I do.
 
killadoob said:
remember battlefield cuts of the last the digit so you might think yur getting a ping of 11 but its actually 110
Click to expand...

They fixed that in BF2, fewl ;)
 
lag lag lag lag and more lag

Just tried again and unfortunately looks like its just not possible with iburst. Has anybody else tried?

Future Iburst customers should told that it's utterly cr*p, when it comes to online gaming... :mad: just about pulled all my hair out.
 
H:\Backup\Desktop>ping -n 12 -l 790 iburst.co.za

Pinging iburst.co.za [196.30.31.120] with 790 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=62ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=61ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=64ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=67ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=67ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=59ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=62ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=64ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=55ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=59ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=54ms TTL=112
Reply from 196.30.31.120: bytes=790 time=71ms TTL=112

Ping statistics for 196.30.31.120:
Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 54ms, Maximum = 71ms, Average = 62ms

Also wireless..... a quarter of iBurst's speed...
/me runs
:)
 
I was quite surprised that the ping was that high actually, perhaps someone on the WAN was browsing or receiving mail.

Go over to this page and scroll down the the bottom where it says WDSL256. Even the 64k package has great pings.. my CS pings to MWeb are 20-30 so no complaints at all :D

Uninet is probably the one wireless company who's getting things right.. thats what's got telskom so darn worried.
 
Mad it must be more to SGS? Coz AFAIK MWEB is based in capetown..

rustic, perhaps if you get an antenna to try stabalise the signal?

*edit.. fifth-hundred post, Hooray :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X