#11  
Old 8th November 2010, 03:29 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,256
Default

Hey I tested this out with someone, but we couldn't start the game.

When I hosted and had him enter the IP, it always gave the "connection attempt failed" timeout error, probably because my parents use a router in this network that I know nothing about and need to use a certain port number.

When my adversary hosted, I got the "connection actively refused" error message, even when he disabled the firewall. Tried the IPv4 address as well for the hell of it.

Any idea why the second problem happened?
Heh or help with the router in the first problem?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 8th November 2010, 04:36 PM
rommaster rommaster is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1
Default

When I start the server, I receive an error message.

Quote:
An address which is not compatible with the requested protocol was used.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Image2.jpg (31.4 KB, 71 views)

Last edited by rommaster; 8th November 2010 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8th November 2010, 11:56 PM
aqwertyz aqwertyz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rswedlow View Post
Hey I tested this out with someone, but we couldn't start the game.

When I hosted and had him enter the IP, it always gave the "connection attempt failed" timeout error, probably because my parents use a router in this network that I know nothing about and need to use a certain port number.

When my adversary hosted, I got the "connection actively refused" error message, even when he disabled the firewall. Tried the IPv4 address as well for the hell of it.

Any idea why the second problem happened?
Heh or help with the router in the first problem?
Use this website to figure out how to forward a port: http://portforward.com/
You'll want to forward port 27999 using TCP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rommaster View Post
When I start the server, I receive an error message.
I see from the screenshot you posted that you are using Windows XP, which does not support IPv6. I meant for the plugin to work with both IPv4 and IPv6, but I don't think I ever got around to testing the server on Windows XP. That is my initial guess for what is causing the problem. If that is indeed the problem, it should be easy to fix.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 9th November 2010, 05:49 PM
aqwertyz aqwertyz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

rswedlow, you're right that the problem probably has to do with your router. Google how to forward a port for your specific router. The instructions are different for different routers. You'll want to forward TCP port 27999 to your computer.

rommaster, turns out you encountered that bug because you tried to run the server on Windows XP, which does not support IPv6. I have fixed the problem and updated the attachment on my original post. It should work fine on Windows XP now.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10th November 2010, 01:49 AM
squall_leonhart's Avatar
squall_leonhart squall_leonhart is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,915
Default

incorporate uPNP
__________________

CPU:Intel Xeon x5690 @ 4.2Ghz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage III Extreme, Memory:48GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, NVidia Geforce GTX 1060 Founders Edition
Monitor:ROG PG279Q, BenQ BL2211, Sound:Creative XFI Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
SDD:Crucial MX300 275, Crucial MX300 525, Crucial MX300 1000
HDD:500GB Spinpoint F3, 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Red, 1TB WD Black
Case:NZXT Phantom 820, PSU:Seasonic X-850, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11th November 2010, 01:53 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,256
Default

I've tested this with somebody else hosting the game, and I was able to connect that time (no mystery active refusal of the connection). SSB was pretty slow though no matter what lag setting, but the IP locations for both of us were like, polar opposites of this planet. I guess lag is the only NetPlay speed optimization?

And I will get to both the lone test trial and forwarding that port number for the router.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11th November 2010, 02:13 AM
aqwertyz aqwertyz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

I set the maximum allowed lag to 15 frames, because at that point I found that games were very difficult to play anyway. Since most games read from the controller 60 times per second, a lag of 15 is equivalent to a lag of 250 milliseconds. Therefore, if the ping between you and the person you are playing against is greater than 500 ms (meaning your "one-way" ping is greater than 250 ms), the game will not run at full frame rate, even at lag 15.

However, I guess 15 is a pretty arbitrary limit. I'll upload a new version of the plugin later where the lag can be set to something higher than 15. However, the higher the lag, the harder the game will be to play.

The reason why a game does not run at full speed when lag is set too low is because for each frame, the netplay plugin ends up having to wait for packets to arrive from the other players. By buffering input data so it is always available to the plugin without having to wait, the frame rate can be brought back to 60, but with the side effect of lag. Nothing can be done to prevent this sadly, unless you find a way to send data at faster than the speed of light.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13th November 2010, 12:36 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,256
Default

Yeah, that's the way I remember it on the Kaillera FAQ. I don't think I've ever seen or played around with a lag configuration before though; I always thought lag was just a qualititive observation of a lack of screen updating in online play. Maybe what this does is intentionally skip controller signal receipt frames so that less input data needs to be waited for, to speed up the game?

Oh also seems I wasn't hallucinating about that bug heh, sweet a new release.

Last edited by HatCat; 13th November 2010 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13th November 2010, 01:16 AM
aqwertyz aqwertyz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

I think what Kaillera does is use the ping of each player to automatically estimate the appropriate lag to use. This information is kept hidden from the user. Kaillera also has a setting called "Connection type", where you pick the number of "keyframes" to send per second. "Good (20 keyframes/s)", "Excellent (30 keyframes/s)", etc. However, I always assumed this had more to do with reducing bandwidth than reducing lag. My plugin always sends all 60 frames per second. You can expect this to use about 3 KB/s of bandwidth up and 3 KB/s down, most of it being packet overhead.

Anyway, my netplay implementation is similar to the netplay implementation used by Dolphin, the Gamecube/Wii emulator. In Dolphin, you can adjust the lag during the game just like you can adjust it with my netplay plugin. However, any time I've tested Dolphin's netplay, the game has always desynced. Hopefully they'll fix that soon.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14th November 2010, 03:05 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,256
Default

About the connection type, I remember that making SSB less or more responsive to button combinations, affecting the timing of buttons in a sequence (especially those when two signals have to be set at the same time), though I stuck with 20 packets/s (Good) with some frustration with timing sequences. Well, of course again with the test I've done here, the pings were too high or something, so the VI/s was too low to test something like this until I test with someone else.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.