Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Waning tolerance for(server?)lag

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Waning tolerance for(server?)lag

    How much lag online is acceptable, before it starts to destroy game play experience and thus enjoyment?

    Epic recently relaunched UT3(all credit for that) but the gameplay on public servers, in terms of smoothness of play is pretty far from what we got with UT2004, and always seems to have been so.... why?

    I know everybody will say, don't whine, just put up with it or leave, but what hope can a game have when even regular players are so dissatisfied that they can barely recommend UT3 Warfare games to friends?

    Now it seems to be deteriorating, it's getting so choppy with full servers, games are often being reduced to stuttery slide shows on certain maps. Even when the stated ping is acceptable and client side HW is good -quad core etc, and settings and res aren't system taxing. So why is UT3 so uniquely sensitive to increasing player counts to the extent that stated ping can double or triple in the course of a single game?

    #2
    I've written a few posts about this. This is the most annoying thing for a Warfare player(next is no ingame server browser).

    From my post here http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=694388

    I have been noticing and suffering from this since two years. For example, my ping was 86 yesterday on US Epic Warfare #2 when it had 12 players playing but went up to 130 ping as people joined with 30 players playing. Everyone was complaining about the lag.

    This is completely reproducible by everyone on every warfare server. This does not happen on UT2k4 ONS. I ping about 48 to a ONS server running in Chicago with 32 players(not bots) playing. I was told by some server admins that this problem is caused by the UT3 server threading code unable to utilize multicore CPUs on the game servers properly. No idea if that's the case, but a fix would be real nice and would help gameplay a lot.

    Everyone knows how annoying lag is. Can't hit moving shock combos, can't do cool moves with the manta, can't use sniper or shock. In UT2004, I considered 90 ping to be bad and used to get it to a London server. In UT3, 90 has become a good ping. Servers that run multiple gameservers are more affected(eg. UMG based servers), conversely, dedicated servers(like the old pub clan server that i am trying to revive) are a little less affected(my ping only goes from 60 to 90 with a full 24 players server) because CPU load is lesser. But it still is very annoying.

    If anyone wants to reproduce this, you can join the Epic Official Warfare Server #2 when it has few or no players(afternoon or evening EST), note your ping. Join again when the server has more than 25 players (about 11pm to 1am EST). Note your ping now, it will be significantly higher and this has nothing to do with your computer or network, it's the server unable to calculate all the complex warfare and vehicles and node calculations for too many users. Been suffering with this for 2 years, a fix is appreciated.

    Hoping this can be forwarded to the people working on UT3!
    The reason it gets choppy is that the server is unable to send enough information because it's running low on CPU, hence it throttles the netspeed down resulting in low frames. The only way right now to make it a little better is to use a very powerful server.

    Plug: Pub clan has a new Warfare Server in US that's on a dedicated machine that has less lag when full than other servers.

    Comment


      #3
      from my experience 60-80 ms is okish anything above is bad anything below should be mainly fairanything below 30 is almost LANlike

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BlueCloud View Post
        I've written a few posts about this. This is the most annoying thing for a Warfare player(next is no ingame server browser).

        The reason it gets choppy is that the server is unable to send enough information because it's running low on CPU, hence it throttles the netspeed down resulting in low frames. The only way right now to make it a little better is to use a very powerful server.

        Plug: Pub clan has a new Warfare Server in US that's on a dedicated machine that has less lag when full than other servers.
        This "throttling" explanation does indeed seem correct because when it kicks in everyone playing, is equally like, whoa! lag spike. Everyone knows it's a lot worse on the larger stock maps; Avalanche, Torlan , Serenity (the movement updates over those larger distances producing server overwhelming rates of positional data flow?) than with the smaller maps like Tank crossing, Downtown.

        Isn't UT3's Client-server data traffic comparable to UT2004's? I remember some of the largest vehicle oriented stock ONS maps, like Red planet and Dria would suffer bad lag sometimes too, so I don't want to say it was entirely perfect with Ut2004.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Nono View Post
          This "throttling" explanation does indeed seem correct because when it kicks in everyone playing, is equally like, whoa! lag spike. Everyone knows it's a lot worse on the larger stock maps; Avalanche, Torlan , Serenity (the movement updates over those larger distances producing server overwhelming rates of positional data flow?) than with the smaller maps like Tank crossing, Downtown.

          Isn't UT3's Client-server data traffic comparable to UT2004's? I remember some the largest vehicle oriented stock ONS maps, like Red planet and Dria would suffer bad lag sometimes too, so I don't want to say it was entirely perfect with Ut2004.
          The traffic load itself is similar I think, but the server has trouble calculating it, hence the CPU usage is very high for a UT3 WAR server compared to the ONS server. A ONS server running on the same machine has no trouble dealing with 32 players, but even 20 players on the WAR server cause CPU usage to shoot up Hence I think it's more of a CPU lag on the server than network lag, since the server can easily handle 100MBPS. .I feel Avalanche is the laggiest map of all.

          Comment


            #6
            Anyone for 64 player Avalanche?

            If it is cpu calculation problems, maybe part of the $1m MSU contest with Intel , could sponsor a few Intel Nehalem xeon powered Epic servers, the most popular servers by far.... so the game showcasing UE3 actually runs well. Afaik the best Epic servers at the mo use Q6600s, correct me if I'm wrong.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by dzs Awez0me View Post
              from my experience 60-80 ms is okish anything above is bad anything below should be mainly fairanything below 30 is almost LANlike

              Totally agree, anything over 80-90 I can still play but my skills deteriorate compared to other lower ping players. As far as the cpu..... Nehalem is state of the art, I'm sure even a middle ground would be way better than what we have now. An i7 maybe?

              Comment


                #8
                The numbers online mean setting up non Epic servers a waste of time and $ , as no one would use them, however good. There are a couple of Epic's- NA and EU, that are often 32/32 these would be pretty good candidates.

                Comment


                  #9
                  What is the tickrate on the server? By default it is set to 35 tickrate. I run my servers at the maximum 80 tickrate with gameservers, but they are duel servers.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X