Netcode

[Balschoiw 0]

As Arma´s release is getting closer I am a bit worried about

the connection one must have to play MP Armed Assault without problems.

Is there an official statement about the connection you need to have or could any of the dev´s give a short statement on the issue ?

I am bound to ISDN for infrastructure reasons. That means I have 8k/sec wich is of course very low compared to DSL or DSL variants, but as a matter of fact no DSL is available here and SkyDSL is no solution aswell as upstream has to be handled via ISDN aswell and the remarkable delay in downstream via satellite makes it almost useless for online gaming.

While things worked pretty fine with OFP and my connection I am afraid that the sheer amount of units supported in Arma will kill multiplayer for me and others who are bound to slow internet connections.

Will Arma´s release day be the end of multiplayer for all with low bandwidth ?

[l etranger 5]

Arma Bandwith is like ofp, depending from the mission. Arma also got alot of Elite optimizations, so there is chance that bandwith usage should be a bit lower than ofp.

[(FPC) Bacon 0]

Will the LAGG on the multiplayer affect every one on a server if some one has a high PING which is what happens at the moment on flashpoint

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Usually in OFP when someone has a high ping it only really effects them, in my experience anyway. It seems most things in MP happen on the client side, that's why you never notice that you're lagging, because for you, everyone else appears to lag. Sometimes in other games, the lag effects everything you do, even movement (I hate that, it makes the game unplayable).

[norsu 180]

Usually in OFP when someone has a high ping it only really effects them, in my experience anyway...

Doesn't client's lag have effect on vehicles they are driving? I've seen many times when high pinger gets in as driver the whole vehicle starts lagging, all players inside included.

[llauma 0]

Doesn't client's lag have effect on vehicles they are driving? I've seen many times when high pinger gets in as driver the whole vehicle starts lagging, all players inside included.

Yes.. and it seems to become even worse in tanks with a driver, gunner and commander as the ping seems to be multiplied. You need to have a quite good ping/bandwidth to be able to function well in tanks with other players. If you're on ISDN or something you usually lag the tank by a couple of seconds and if people want to get out of a vehicle you're driving it will take an eternity.

[Ukraineboy 0]

I doubt there'll be much support for 56k or ISDN. It's simply old and obsolete, just like graphics cards get old and obsolete so has 56k or ISDN. While I understand some people have to have it due to limitations, the fact is majority of online gamers have ADSL so I doubt BIS cares much about it.

[Heatseeker 0]

OPFR is perfectly playable with dial up or even a not so good ping, it all depends on the mission and server . I played some coops back in OPF 1.46 with dial up and even back then it was perfectly playable.

Not so long ago i had some public coops and there was someone on dial up, never saw him lag or warp around, he just took longer to download the mission files .

Vehicles are a problem though and really big missions with lots of units and vehicles might be unplayable but well designed infantry coop scenarios (the best stuff imo) might work well.

[Donnervogel 0]

I am bound to ISDN for infrastructure reasons. That means I have 8k/sec wich is of course very low compared to DSL or DSL variants, but as a matter of fact no DSL is available here [...]

Well did you check if cable internet is available where you live? I use it for a couple of years already and I'm very happy with it. Low pings, bandwidth is like DSL, sometimes higher, depends on the provider. Costs are also the same as DSL here in Switzerland.

[Balschoiw 0]

I´ve checked everything. There even was an initiative with collecting signatures to get DSl, but no luck so far.

Quote[/b] ]It's simply old and obsolete

Not really, at least in germany there are over 4 million households that cannot get access to faster internet connections and from the participation on our server I can say that there are still enough people with ISDN connections.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I´ve checked everything. There even was an initiative with collecting signatures to get DSl, but no luck so far.

Wow, I was collecting signatures for DSL too, it took them three years to enable DSL at my suburbian apartment. Altough wireless was available all that time, it was too expensive for home use.

Also, Heatseeker is right, I played OFP with 56k, and ping wasn't a big issue. But OFP is not the issue here. Now, assuming BIS started with OFP and went to improve the netcode for OFP:E and (maybe) then improved it more for ArmA, there is a high chance of game being playable on ISDN/56k too, but I wouldn't bet on it. In the recent video, where LAN gameplay was shown, the game went very smoothly despite OFP sometimes being laggy over LAN, especially with CTI-s.

I hope for the best.

[Balschoiw 0]

It would end a lot of speculation if the DEV´s or Placebo could give some info.

[suma 8]

Arma Bandwith is like ofp, depending from the mission. Arma also got alot of Elite optimizations, so there is chance that bandwith usage should be a bit lower than ofp.

I would even say ArmA bandwidth requiremens are lower than OFP, thanks to numerous optimizations, but as already said, it really depends on the mission, and with more players and more complex missions the bandwidth requirements will be higher.

While developing Xbox version, we estimated around 32kbps per player is needed on the server in a moderately complex mission, including voice over net. Your hosting options will therefore be quite limited, but you should be able to play at least some missions.

That said, I do not have any solid numbers from ArmA net testing yet, therefore the above is only estimation and it is by no means guaranteed.

[Balschoiw 0]

Thx for the answer.

Looks at least like I don´t have to give up online gaming with Arma totally. I hope there is still room for people like me who don´t have access to DSL or higher.

Player numbers and mission dimensions will evolve with Arma so maybe I will show up for some coop "Steal the car"

Guess it´s time to think about some really lonely evenings

Anyway, I can temporarely use channel bundling to get 16Kb/sec downstream which will double my costs but should make it possible to play at least some missions online.

If you need solid numbers about ISDN performance with Arma, send me the Beta

Thanks again.

[Average Joe 0]

Thanks for the Input Suma

[Serclaes 0]

I doubt there'll be much support for 56k or ISDN. It's simply old and obsolete, just like graphics cards get old and obsolete so has 56k or ISDN. While I understand some people have to have it due to limitations, the fact is majority of online gamers have ADSL so I doubt BIS cares much about it.

Actually thats not true. ADSL and 56k uses the same Analog method to transmit data while ISDN uses the Digital way, allowing to send on the lower Hertz frequency of the usual dualconductor copper cable you find in every household that has a phone. So in fact, DSL is a step back.

But DSL+ISDN = you can be on phone while downloading the newest FFUR without any bandwitch losses of each of them.

Thanks for the statement Suma

[bn880 5]

Yah umm, guys, don't confuse kbps with kBps. I doubt there is an ISDN connection out there that is only 16kbps downstream. 16kBps, perhaps? (Bytes)

[rekrul 7]

Actually thats not true. ADSL and 56k uses the same Analog method to transmit data while ISDN uses the Digital way, allowing to send on the lower Hertz frequency of the usual dualconductor copper cable you find in every household that has a phone. So in fact, DSL is a step back.

But DSL+ISDN = you can be on phone while downloading the newest FFUR without any bandwitch losses of each of them.

Uhm, so you're saying that you can only have phone+DSL if you have ISDN? Are you also saying that ADSL is analoge?

[frederf 0]

Yes ADSL (Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line) is analogue. That is why you have a "Modem." A modem is always a Analolgue to Digitital converter. In a way DSL is "very fast dial-up" apart from the radically different protocol differences, but the same priciniple for information transfer. Whether I call DSL "a step back" is another matter. It's certainly limited by the digital->analogue->digital conversions that have to take place.

What I would really like from this thread is not some subjective "Oh, 128kbps DSL will be fine." subjective crap. I want to know:

Server hosting 10 players, typical mission: A kBps down / B kBps up

Server hosting 30 players, typical mission: C kBps down / D kBps up

Server hosting 50 players, typical mission: E kBps down / F kBps up

Server hosting 100 players, typical mission: G kBps down / H kBps up

Client usability starts to noticable suffer for pings in excess of P ping.

[rekrul 7]

Yes ADSL (Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line) is analogue. That is why you have a "Modem." A modem is always a Analolgue to Digitital converter. In a way DSL is "very fast dial-up" apart from the radically different protocol differences, but the same priciniple for information transfer. Whether I call DSL "a step back" is another matter. It's certainly limited by the digital->analogue->digital conversions that have to take place.

You're stretching the analoge-definition a bit far with this. As you already pointed out, the D in ADSL is for digital. Fair enough that you need an AFE (analog front end) either infront of, or integrated in the DSP (DSL-chip) for the physical layer, but this convertion has virtually no impact for performance. ADSL use advanced digital signal processing and algorithms to be able to send more data thru than with digital signaling. While ISDN might have digital signalling, it use over 1Mhz for a 64+64+16kbit/s link and is obviously not realistic for high-speed connections. (However I must admit I'm not familar with the ISDN PSD mask or its frequency use). How you can say that ADSL is more limited than ISDN is something I don't understand.

PS! Sorry for thread-hijack.

To drive this back on topic, I certainly hope BIS learned their lesson and does not use DirectPlay as their netcode this time.

[rekrul 7]

I would even say ArmA bandwidth requiremens are lower than OFP, thanks to numerous optimizations, but as already said, it really depends on the mission, and with more players and more complex missions the bandwidth requirements will be higher.

While developing Xbox version, we estimated around 32kbps per player is needed on the server in a moderately complex mission, including voice over net. Your hosting options will therefore be quite limited, but you should be able to play at least some missions.

That said, I do not have any solid numbers from ArmA net testing yet, therefore the above is only estimation and it is by no means guaranteed.

To clear up misunderstandings, a client doesn't need 32kbps*number of players of bandwidth. The server will collect all data and send it to you. It's not like you'll get 32kbps from player A, 32kbps from player B, and so on as a client.

The interesting part would be how much data the server sends to the clients when it has e.g. 64 clients.

[frederf 0]

Traditionally the limitation isn't on client download ability but on the ability for the server to upload that info to all the clients. Server upload cost / player is the major limitation.

[rekrul 7]

Again I don't see how ISDN is better than ADSL here.

Either way, you'll probably need 32kbps*# of players you want on your server. Add 5-10% on top of that for administrative traffic, bursty traffic, etc as a minimum.

[frederf 0]

Completely out of the blue, without justification, but GOSH DARNING NOW THAT'S A REAL ANSWER!

[rekrul 7]

Not sure if it's sarcasm or not,since these numbers are based completly on estimates. Since Placebo took an estimate from OFP:Elite where they have 32kbps per player and couldn't give a certain number on ArmA himself, we will assume that ArmA will be in that area.

My 5-10% margin might be insufficient but hard to tell without a realtime sniff of the traffic-pattern of a busy battlefield and since I'm not a part of the beta, I can't tell how far I'm off but I'd be surpised if you need more than 10% on a max-server. For small servers (few players) this might be higher since administrative traffic will have a bigger piece of the pie than gamedata compared to a big server (50-100 players).

Also note that I didn't take mission-downloading into consideration. If you live on the edge, bandwidth wise, big missions might take some time to download but it won't have a direct impact on gameplay.