Netcode

[Balschoiw]

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 ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

[L etranger]

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]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif

[Big Dawg KS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

OPFR is perfectly playable with dial up or even a not so good ping, it all depends on the mission and server http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif . 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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

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]

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]

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]

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Balschoiw]

It would end a lot of speculation if the DEV´s or Placebo could give some info. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/welcome.gif

[Suma]

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]

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" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Guess it´s time to think about some really lonely evenings http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Thanks again.

[Average Joe]

Thanks for the Input Suma http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Serclaes]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[bn880]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rekrul]

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.

[tomcat_]

yes indeed that discussion will help...however is an estimate before the release of Arma. Now with the release i was hoping that some players will release real data...or BIS will release real data.

My question is that 32kbs that have been quoted is download or upload speed. Either dsl, 56k or isdn...this is very very important to know...

In any case we need to know an average (cause is mission depended) download and upload speed.

Also, something that it has been mentioned as high ping users cause the whole server players to have high ping. On our dedicated i have 170ms ping and when really busy and my bandwith will not cope i will go up to 700-800ms. The other players never have probs with ping, bandwith or dysync..

We can either carry on discussing this on this thread...or we can carry on at mine...up to placebo...

[Rekrul]

The uploadspeed is estimated to 32kbps. To get some more definate data, we need someone with ArmA to come in here.

As for the DL bandwidth, we don't know. I would assume that if you are connected to a server with 10 players you get less than one with 64, but this is not proportional. It depends on the number of active units in play as it doesn't impact the bw wether there is an AI or human soldier moving around. It's still the same data, but there is likely to be more talking and maybe voice when there are more human players than less.

All in all I would guess the DL bw would depend on the number of units in the mission and a slightly increase per human player connected.

[Baff2]

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.
After 2 years, I found the installations manager for the local telecoms company and bribed him.

[tomcat_]

Has anyone got more accurate data on the average and max download and upload bandwith necessary from client point of view?

Also, can one moderator move this thread to the multiplayer forum please?

[Placebo]

Belongs in MP now there is an MP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[ISVRaDa]

Hi!

In my server we have been playing five days approximately with 10-12 players and we have not had any lag problems.

My connection: 3Mb Download and 1Mb Upload.

I need more online tests but for moment it has convinced me.

PD: sorry for my poor english level http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Sickboy]

Altough this is not alone about the connection speed but more over the rest of the netcode and engine, I thought it would be some nice info to post:

Server running on 1 cpu: AMD Opteron 2000mhz, 1mb cache, 3gb DDR1. ArmA v1.01. ArmA and OFP Dedicated servers are hardlimited to 50fps max.


12 o clock, Sarahni Desert, both sides walking into eachother and fighting. We were watching the fight http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

912 units (incl. 32 vehicles) east+west, 0 ai civs, 2 player civs, 800m viewd: server fps ~2, client fps ~7, in fight server output ~535kbps, input ~15kbps
456 units (incl. 16 vehicles) east+west, 14 ai civs, 2 player civs, 1600m viewd: server fps ~7, client fps ~18, in fight server output ~1100kbps, input ~300kbps
456 units (incl. 16 vehicles) east+west, 14 ai civs, 2 player civs, 1000m viewd: server fps ~8, client fps ~19, in fight server output ~1100kbps, input ~300kbps
456 units (incl. 16 vehicles) east+west, 0 ai civs, 2 player civs, 1000m viewd: server fps ~9, client fps ~22, in fight server output ~1100kbps, input ~100kbps
228 units (incl. 8 vehicles) east+west, 14 ai civs, 2 player civs, 1000m viewd: server fps ~22, client fps ~40, in fight server output ~600kbps, input ~250kbps
114 units (incl. 4 vehicles) east+west, 14 ai civs, 2 player civs, 1000m viewd: server fps ~35, client fps ~45, in fight server output ~275kbps, input ~50kbps

Pretty much units, server itself isn't the highest speed cpu available etc, so I think that with some faster computers, good arma patches.. we can manage ~456 units or even more fighting eachother while still having a descent fps, and think about.. how many times you gonna have so many units fighting on your screen?
Think about what can already achieved with current hardware, when using DAC by Silola or CoC AI On Demand etc... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif

The server fps remains pretty high at the start ~35-45 while the units are standing still and starting to move.
When they collide the server got the fps of what you see in the table. Server FPS climbs step by step again when units die http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Will post some more results when we come to it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[tomcat_]

so from what you are saying with these data is that with 2 players in the server the max input and output for the clients was 550kbps and 150kbs respectively..!!

which means someone who doesn't have at least 512k connection for down and 150k for up will be getting lag or dysync....

is that correct?

[Sickboy]

so from what you are saying with these data is that with 2 players in the server the max input and output for the clients was 550kbps and 150kbs respectively..!!

which means someone who doesn't have at least 512k connection for down and 150k for up will be getting lag or dysync....

is that correct?
Yes http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif I'm saying that the game in it's current state and if there are so many units on about 1 square kilometer fighting eachother all at once, while the player is near to it, then players need the mentioned kbps in the table divided by 2, times about 125%.


I dont know what happens if the fight is 2km away from the player location, will have a look at that, only tested when we were close/middle in the battle.

Second, what's wrong with needing a proper internet connection for playing a huge battle where extreme numbers of AI are battling eachother etc? 512kbit down and 150kbps up is like bottom of the line nowadays... 6mbit down 512kbps up is more the usual...

[J W]

I've got 8 both ways, and probably upgrading to 24/8, would that be enough for Armed Assault, for lets say compared to OFP, a CTI?

I mean, if I have the dedi at that connection.

[tomcat_]

Second, what's wrong with needing a proper internet connection for playing a huge battle where extreme numbers of AI are battling eachother etc? 512kbit down and 150kbps up is like bottom of the line nowadays... 6mbit down 512kbps up is more the usual...
nothing's wrong with that...is just usefull to know what's the need for playing the game bandwith wise...

Of course the standard in most parts of the word is what u mentioned...apart from developing countries...where 128k down and 64up will set u back a nice Ł100 per month or 150€ per month or $189 per month...:)

That's why i want to know the bandwith needs cause every bloody kb in this part of the world costs more than gold... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

when u love something though...is worth the sacrifice...:)

[zyklone]

I think it might be a mistake to draw the conclusion that those BWs are the minimum required for that number of units.

It will probably still be playable on a worse connection as the server adjusts how much data it sends to the clients depending on what bandwidth it believes the client has.

Overall the number of units looks promising. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[tomcat_]

I think it might be a mistake to draw the conclusion that those BWs are the minimum required for that number of units.

It will probably still be playable on a worse connection as the server adjusts how much data it sends to the clients depending on what bandwidth it believes the client has.

Overall the number of units looks promising. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I don't know if there are correct or not but with 128 down and 64 up...still have the same problems which is high pings and high dysync at times...

so these numbers have to be quite close...as noone else on the server is getting high pings or dysync...

looks like arma is using similar bandwith as OFP...

[Sickboy]

I don't know if there are correct or not but with 128 down and 64 up...still have the same problems which is high pings and high dysync at times...

so these numbers have to be quite close...as noone else on the server is getting high pings or dysync...

looks like arma is using similar bandwith as OFP...
as long as not more than 75% of download and upload is used, in usual connections, then there will be no desync/lags.
(which is depending ofcoarse on how much data the ofp server is pushing to you, but as a chap earlier mentioned, ofp can make things more jumpy instead of smooth, on lower bandwidth, so probably arma too&#33http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Desync/lags usually come from improper servers, missions, scripts,  routes between the server and the troubled client can have hickups (Internet is very huge, there are many backup routes, but if certain routes start 'hicking' then there is not much you can do about it.

Furthermore desync/lags are caused by downloading ppl, as said, 75% should be maximum used of both up and down, otherwise you start experiencing slowdowns, as many people are on routers with their little brothers and family, you can bet where the lag/desync is coming from...

There is usually a queue that the router/windows works with, this queue of packets should remain small... if this queue becomes big, especially in the case of other programs using bandwidth and being in front in the queue while game packets are at the last part of the queue, you also get desyncs/lags.

Having a good router with proper QOS setup (I said proper, not the el cheapo 5 buck solutions) which controls the queue and gives high priority to gamepackets, will ensure proper connection throughout the whole match, even when others are downloading/uploading on the same line!


Connection speed has nothing to do with pings, until the connection is full and needs to queue the packets.
Location, provider's equipment and setup, length of the line, location compared to the server (The route that it needs to take to the server), quality of the lines (errorrate), that are all things that have effect on the ping to the server. Aswell as that the server FPS should remain above 20 to not create desyncs/lags afaik.

[pwablo]

Sickboy, Regarding Server FPS, In OFP dedicated using a P4-3.2Ghz HT cpu I gained several FPS when using the "TimeCall" tool HERE (http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~hotzone1/timer.zip)
Do you think it is worth testing this to see if ArmA gains any extra FPS when running dedicated?

Cheers

[Romolus]

ArmA already seems to use high resolution timer, so using that tool wouldn't help at all.

[pwablo]

ArmA already seems to use high resolution timer, so using that tool wouldn't help at all.
Thanks for that I wasn't sure, so I'd thought Id ask, because I noticed other games like FEAR Combat Dedicated Server also gained FPS when running this tool.

Cheers