Game version 3.002 discussion: Game Functionality Update

[Bumfluff]

On 30/04/2018 at 12:54 AM, Habu said:

Yes, the default setting was 300 (i didn't check in the last version), but as i said, any administrator can increase or decrease the value. On my server, i set it on unlimited, because i have friends who have some connection problem.

 

Playing with wifi can be  a part of the problem. The wifi is not a stable connection. There are some variations. But you are not in wifi.

 

You didn't answer if you are using the launcher to play the game.

 

I’m also having massive difficulties with ping from Australia.

 

is there another way of joining servers other than through the launcher? Would that make a difference?

[Habu]

Go in your game directory :

E:\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\bin\game

 

DFo a shortcut on the programm Il-2.exe, and use it to run the game. 

 

But you have to use the launcher when there is an update.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 1.05.2018 at 6:56 PM, =BMAD=kirumovka said:

That could be the case for the direct perth-singapore connection..........

 

Did you try this https://www.wtfast.com/ ?  

It presumably helps gamers form Australia.

read

https://wtfast.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/210169923-How-Proxys-and-or-VPNs-Can-Reroute-Your-Data-and-Improve-It-

 

BTW long ago I was using rerouting proxies to reduce my ping while playing at foreign servers - sometimes it was reduced by 10-20 ms :-)

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

On 02/05/2018 at 2:56 AM, =BMAD=kirumovka said:

And yes about using VPN as you said, it can reduce latency if it is located in a place like the middle east. I'm not that dumb to accept logic like connecting VPN located in antarctica and expect it to reduce my latency for connecting to sydney from perth. However it is apparently possible to redirect routing through vpn that isn't at a deliberate middle of the intended route location like india, but rather having one at the destination such as in Paris. I'm not sure how that works however, so maybe VPNs do have some control over chosen routing.

You aren't understanding - your VPN terminator simply being in the Middle East doesn't reduce latency - it just doesn't make it impossible like a terminator in Antarctica would. Any VPN termination point off the shortest network path is only going to add latency in addition to the additional latency inherent in encapsulating traffic - which is what a VPN does. People use VPNs, and pay the attendant cost of latency, for secrecy or to alter their apparent location. VPNs do not - except in some very exceptional circumstances - reduce latency, simply because the packets still have to traverse all the same network segments - just encapsulated.

I am sure - designing and maintaining these networks has been my day job for several years. 

 

10 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Wifi will in almost all cases produce packet loss and sometimes high jitter or connection interferences lasting multiple hundreds of milliseconds, thats why with wifi you get a lot of disconnects in Il-2 MP.

 

But as you habe ethernet its rather bad routing by the ISPs.

The WiFi advice is correct. Do not use it for timing-sensitive applications.

 

However, with respect to his particular problem, its not bad routing - its physics.

You can't beat the speed of light, and the speed of light in glass is about 200,000km/s. Either way you go from Australia, WOL is about half a great circle away. But fibre paths don't follow great circles so the fibre path is actually about 1.5 times as long. Thats more than 30,000km - 60,000km for a round trip (which is what ping reports). Thats approximately 300ms - and that is with a single fibre and no switch gear, routers, firewalls or shitty copper tails or radio links over last-mile connections. Then you have inevitable packet loss due to collisions, congestion, wave cancellation, state table overflows, etc and the consequent retransmission that is just part of how the Internet works. That can add between 50 and 100ms as your packets transit tens or hundreds of intermediary networks and their associated switching and routing equipment. Packet handling in routers adds latency - and there are at least 20 between you and WOL (only some are detected by ping - most are "bump-in-the-wire" devices invisible to basic topology mapping tools).

 

Then there is quantisation. To maximise aggregate throughput, networking equipment typically waits to fill a buffer (for the next transport layer network frame) before forwarding. If the MAC frames for a given link are large (to increase total bandwidth) and your packets are tiny then the delay to fill frames can become significant. You can naturally configure this behaviour for the links you manage but it isn't automatic and takes into account the general usage pattern of the link.

 

Last but not least (actually not even last but I don't have time for more) there is processing overhead at the source and destination. You may have noticed your ping increases - sometimes dramatically - when the server has more players. This is because the server is not able to process network traffic at anywhere near line-rate and the added load of maintaining state for the additional players makes it slower to produce, consume and otherwise handle network traffic.

 

The only way we antipodeans are going to have pings below 350 would be for a popular server to be hosted in the US. I even deployed one - making a personal compromise of 150ms over an AU hosted server - but noone would leave WOL.

 

3 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

BTW long ago I was using rerouting proxies to reduce my ping while playing at foreign servers - sometimes it was reduced by 10-20 ms :-)

This can help, but you need to find a location for your proxy that is close to the network shortest path and which lies on a route which bypasses a problematic link or device (ie has a destination IP that will not be routed over the same slow link anyway). The proxy will at least avoid encapsulation overhead. The dynamic nature of routing rules outside your control will often defeat this over time and the gains are minimal anyway - WOL ping fluctuates by more than 30 ms from one minute to the next.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Dave

[LukeFF]

And what in the world does this all have to do with the latest update?

[TheSNAFU]

3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

And what in the world does this all have to do with the latest update?

 

Thank you! 

[Dave]

29 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

And what in the world does this all have to do with the latest update?

Bugger all - but its hard to respond to a post anywhere but in the same thread. Perhaps an admin can move them.

[Dave]

On 20/04/2018 at 5:50 PM, ZachariasX said:

maybe your wingman was in fact inside the cloud, you jus thought that the vloud bitmap looked farer back.

 

We don't have clouds as volumes in the sim. There is no way to get near them, they are just scaled cardboard in front of you. I guess in VR this spacial artifact is even more prominent than on a monitor. Still, it's working as intended.

I have tested this to death. I am always in constant voice comms with my wingman. This issue occurs when he is between me and a cloud. This is a bug. Unless bugs are intended it is not working as intended. If this doesn't happen to you I'm happy for you. It does happen to me - all the time - and I'm growing tired of other people proclaiming there is no problem just because it doesn't affect them. Regardless of whether the clouds are volumetric or billboarded, the game clearly tracks whether or not a player is "inside" cloud, and it is possible to transition from outside cloud to inside cloud consistently when approaching a cloud from the same side. Therefore the game seems to consistently model a cloud being on one side or another of a player. Similarly another aircraft when viewed from your own is either in front of the cloud, or obscured by it. If a cloud and a second player are both to one side of player one and player two sees the same cloud to the same side of their aircraft as the first, then player two is between the cloud and player one. If this relation does not hold (away from boundary conditions ) we have either a bug or a major design flaw.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Dave

[JaffaCake]

49 minutes ago, Dave said:

I have tested this to death. I am always in constant voice comms with my wingman. This issue occurs when he is between me and a cloud. This is a bug. Unless bugs are intended it is not working as intended. If this doesn't happen to you I'm happy for you. It does happen to me - all the time - and I'm growing tired of other people proclaiming there is no problem just because it doesn't affect them. Regardless of whether the clouds are volumetric or billboarded, the game clearly tracks whether or not a player is "inside" cloud, and it is possible to transition from outside cloud to inside cloud consistently when approaching a cloud from the same side. Therefore the game seems to consistently model a cloud being on one side or another of a player. Similarly another aircraft when viewed from your own is either in front of the cloud, or obscured by it. If a cloud and a second player are both to one side of player one and player two sees the same cloud to the same side of their aircraft as the first, then player two is between the cloud and player one. If this relation does not hold (away from boundary conditions ) we have either a bug or a major design flaw.

 

 

Just want to say that I get exactly the same bug here with nvidia gfx and w/e the driver of the day it is that it decided to update to. My settings are average, but I play with them from time to time, generally stil lthe same exact but exactly as its described in the quote - even if the aircraft is in front of the cloud, it becomes invisible as long as the cloud is behind him.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

I have tested this to death. I am always in constant voice comms with my wingman. This issue occurs when he is between me and a cloud. This is a bug. Unless bugs are intended it is not working as intended. If this doesn't happen to you I'm happy for you. It does happen to me - all the time - and I'm growing tired of other people proclaiming there is no problem just because it doesn't affect them. Regardless of whether the clouds are volumetric or billboarded, the game clearly tracks whether or not a player is "inside" cloud, and it is possible to transition from outside cloud to inside cloud consistently when approaching a cloud from the same side. Therefore the game seems to consistently model a cloud being on one side or another of a player. Similarly another aircraft when viewed from your own is either in front of the cloud, or obscured by it. If a cloud and a second player are both to one side of player one and player two sees the same cloud to the same side of their aircraft as the first, then player two is between the cloud and player one. If this relation does not hold (away from boundary conditions ) we have either a bug or a major design flaw.

I just never noticed it as I fly and die alone. Not contesting your point, just asking...

[mort]

On 5/2/2018 at 4:54 PM, Dave said:

You aren't understanding - your VPN terminator simply being in the Middle East doesn't reduce latency - it just doesn't make it impossible like a terminator in Antarctica would. Any

... <snip>

 

You sound like network engineers I've worked with but with suspiciously less swearing and none of the really (really) colorful analogies. Not sure if I can trust you ...

[Tuninfogliato]

Good morning to all of you.
This is already the fourth time this error occurs, and I have to restart the campaign because it is not possible to continue.
Thanks if someone can help me.

[sniperton]

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

No round timer and double deaths all the time in MP still. Please Fix. 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

1 hour ago, AeroAce said:

No round timer and double deaths all the time in MP still. Please Fix. 

Noticed that only happens some of the time. Do you know what situation it happens in?

[Tuninfogliato]

It happens finished a campaign mission when you press on next day pops up the error

Good Morning

[Habu]

Give the squadron you use, and the day of the campaign.

 

 

[Tuninfogliato]

The group is: Panzerjager Staffel of Schlachtgeschwader 1.
The airport is Kerch-2 by plane HS 129 B2 Squadron 4 (PZ)/Sch G1
or always same airport with plane JU 87 B3 Squadron II./St.G2
The days of the campaign do not remember them because the campaigns I deleted.

[=/WoVi/=kirumovka]

On 5/3/2018 at 2:53 AM, 307_Tomcat said:

 

Did you try this https://www.wtfast.com/ ?  

 

 

 

I did try it in the past. Made the connection worse by an average of 2msec, tested connecting to NY, Amsterdam and some other european location.

[SCG_ErwinP]

Again I ask for the issue of implementing a queue. There is not a wait queue implemented for multiplayer servers. So when we try to connect and simultaneously other players try too, one or more is "knocked over" and back to the mode selection screen (coop or multiplayer).
I suggest creating a wait queue to connect to multiplayer servers as this, in addition to trivial, makes the attempts fairer as we often see players disconnecting and connecting again ahead of other players who were trying but were, during the attempts, was overthrowed by the server.

This is very frustrating. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by 3./JG15_HansPhilipp