Sick of ISDN BullSh!ters!!

[Smudge249]

How dare a 'noob' god I hate that word, come on here

 

[kinetic]

Very well turnah, let us meet for a game of CS. But first let me just say, 128k DOES make a difference you folish idiot. 128 is stable, 64k is not. 128k handles the traffic better and it does give you a better ping.

Ok that wasnt for you turnah, anyway, today is friday, how about we meet sunday? the 5th may. Post and we'll decide the actual server and time.

Oh but turnah you have got ISDN right? not cable or something? Only meet me if you truely have got ISDN.

And as for that idiot "r0bb", you get a 30 ping do you? very well, you also post and i'll meet you for a game on sunday to!!

 

[Scully]

Jesus, you trust PC Gamer you noob ISDN owns 56k ffs!!!

turnah truly MUST have ISDN if he has a 64k or 128k connection.

Anyway, the numbers (Pings dont mean much) the fact is ISDN has no error correction (Pure digital) so provides a far superior connection. What I mean is lagging out is far less common. AS 56k modems occasionally introduce errors which means the data has to be retransmited causing slow done in play or lag.

ISDN owns 56k. FACT not fiction

 

[Smudge249]

2 cups and a piece of string owns everything

 

[Scully]

hehe

 

[GearChange]

the best i have seen my ping in cs on 64k(using jolt anytime) is 29..
on a good day: my ping will hover between 30-45
average day: between 40-70
bad day: between 70-110

i would be happy to join u for a game of cs on either a jolt or barrysworld server...
my icq # 7918017
email gregmetcalf@btinternet.com

u best hurry my jolt account runs out at midnight on sunday 5th april(bloody money sucking jolt bar stewards)

 

[FordPrefect]

I get pings around 90 to a dutch server! Never mind UK servers which are normally around 50-60 or 70 during busy times. Personally I'd take a look at yoiur setup if I was you...

 

[Armengar]

128k will not help your PING. It may help your in game performance but not your ping.

ping is the time it takes to send a single packet of information from your PC to the IP address, more bandwidth will not help your ping as you are only sending a small packet. So logically if your packet is 4k then why will 128k, 2Mb or 5Gb make a difference?

In game performance is not strictly speaking a "ping", well it is but not the way you type "ping <a href="http://www.ispreview.co.uk"." target="_blank">www.ispreview.co.uk".</a> It measures a GAME packet not a UDP or TCP packet. Game packets are game dependant, if you are in a 30 player server in Q3DM19 then your connection is gonna really suffer as your game packet needs information on all 30 players AND the world around you. Q3 is not a server side game, it is a client side game (your client takes care of what is what) BUT Q3 has better netcode than CS so you will find that 'pings' in game are lower in Q3 than CS (generally) as the game has better ways of sending information to their clients.

Now then, if you have a 64k packet and your conection is only 56k then you can see why your connection will really suffer, not only does your 56k connection have a crap 100ms tracert to your game server, but it needs to send 2 packets just to get the basic info for the game (now its 200ms)

if you had broadband at 512k then you wouldnt have a problem and you game could afford to drop a few packets before maxing out. This is when more bandwidth = better "in game ping".

If you are on the server you are dialing into then you minimise your PC->Server tracert time but your 30 player packet will still hurt ya.

30ms on ISDN may well be possible if you play on a local exchange dialled ISP that hosts a 2 player small map with no moving things or doors (often included in the packet) but realistically it isnt common.

 

[kinetic]

I ment latency, and i dont really care what you say, "I" notice a big difference in my "In game ping" or whatever you like to call it when using 128k instead of 64, 64 is not stable, my ping/latency fluctuates, with 128k it doesnt, its stable, and as such lower on an average, so yes im right. And remember different games have different bandwitdh requirements for online use. this will also make a big difference.( Especially now with next gen games supposedly really high on bandwidth, even Tribes 2 which is relatively old is described by PCG as not for modem users, what you think the reason for that is?)
Im not debating the fact of sending a small packet of data to the exact same server using both 128 and 64k will be different, obviously it wont. The only reason a modems ping is so high is for that very reason, the modem changeing the analog to digital signal, with ISDN there isnt any of that, but remember a 512k ADSL connection can get a ping of 30 easily, a 64kb ISDN connection cant, there both digital, they both use similar methods of translating the data, hell ADSL was called the "Big Brother of ISDN" in last months PCG, the only difference between the two is bandwidth. So yes it does make a differnce, a big one. When i say ping i mean what you are getting whilst playing, im not talking about the geeky true meaning, i.e the time it takes for data to get to from your house to the server and back, hell that would be the same weather using a 9Kb modem or a 3mb ADSL line (obviously cable will be different trough not using Phonelines and being much better tech), Speed of light will always be the same regardless of what you use. And as such i thought it would be pretty obvious in a MP forum that i was on about latency, not the simple time it takes to move a 32Kb scrap of data a few miles.
Which to me, by using that interpretation of "ping" is a cop out, because that means nothing for online gameing, your latency does.

 

[Yak]

Originally posted by kinetic:
<strong>I ment latency, and i dont really care what you say, "I" notice a big difference in my "In game ping" or whatever you like to call it when using 128k instead of 64, 64 is not stable, my ping/latency fluctuates, with 128k it doesnt, its stable, and as such lower on an average, so yes im right. And remember different games have different bandwitdh requirements for online use. this will also make a big difference.( Especially now with next gen games supposedly really high on bandwidth, even Tribes 2 which is relatively old is described by PCG as not for modem users, what you think the reason for that is?)
Im not debating the fact of sending a small packet of data to the exact same server using both 128 and 64k will be different, obviously it wont. The only reason a modems ping is so high is for that very reason, the modem changeing the analog to digital signal, with ISDN there isnt any of that, but remember a 512k ADSL connection can get a ping of 30 easily, a 64kb ISDN connection cant, there both digital, they both use similar methods of translating the data, hell ADSL was called the "Big Brother of ISDN" in last months PCG, the only difference between the two is bandwidth. So yes it does make a differnce, a big one. When i say ping i mean what you are getting whilst playing, im not talking about the geeky true meaning, i.e the time it takes for data to get to from your house to the server and back, hell that would be the same weather using a 9Kb modem or a 3mb ADSL line (obviously cable will be different trough not using Phonelines and being much better tech), Speed of light will always be the same regardless of what you use. And as such i thought it would be pretty obvious in a MP forum that i was on about latency, not the simple time it takes to move a 32Kb scrap of data a few miles.
Which to me, by using that interpretation of "ping" is a cop out, because that means nothing for online gameing, your latency does.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What _you_ need to do, is contradict yourself more.

 

[Yak]

In fact...close this thread as he is just trying to troll, but he just isn't very good at it yet <img src="graemlins/laugh.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh]" />

 

[<they_call_me_dude>]

what pings on a leased line would i get?

on a jolt server?

 

[tricky]

kinetic Vs the World...

Ding Ding Round One.....

Does anyone remember NetinaNutShell?
CounterStrike on an Asuscom pci card under win98 it was always 30-40...

 

[Scully]

Originally posted by kinetic:
<strong>I ment latency, and i dont really care what you say, "I" notice a big difference in my "In game ping" or whatever you like to call it when using 128k instead of 64, 64 is not stable, my ping/latency fluctuates, with 128k it doesnt, its stable, and as such lower on an average, so yes im right. And remember different games have different bandwitdh requirements for online use. this will also make a big difference.( Especially now with next gen games supposedly really high on bandwidth, even Tribes 2 which is relatively old is described by PCG as not for modem users, what you think the reason for that is?)
Im not debating the fact of sending a small packet of data to the exact same server using both 128 and 64k will be different, obviously it wont. The only reason a modems ping is so high is for that very reason, the modem changeing the analog to digital signal, with ISDN there isnt any of that, but remember a 512k ADSL connection can get a ping of 30 easily, a 64kb ISDN connection cant, there both digital, they both use similar methods of translating the data, hell ADSL was called the "Big Brother of ISDN" in last months PCG, the only difference between the two is bandwidth. So yes it does make a differnce, a big one. When i say ping i mean what you are getting whilst playing, im not talking about the geeky true meaning, i.e the time it takes for data to get to from your house to the server and back, hell that would be the same weather using a 9Kb modem or a 3mb ADSL line (obviously cable will be different trough not using Phonelines and being much better tech), Speed of light will always be the same regardless of what you use. And as such i thought it would be pretty obvious in a MP forum that i was on about latency, not the simple time it takes to move a 32Kb scrap of data a few miles.
Which to me, by using that interpretation of "ping" is a cop out, because that means nothing for online gameing, your latency does.</strong><hr></blockquote>


erm I still use 56k and I play Tribes 2 (HUGE Fan) no probs

In fact every game I've got I can play on-line no probs. Just the odd laggy moment and I mean ODD!
GAMES I Play regulary on-line:

Dark Age Of Camelot
Tribes 2
Medal Of Honour
Red Alert 2
Q3
Counter Strike
C&C Renegade



Please get your info right

However ISDN IS better PC GAMER is talking out its arse as usual

btw I only use Quality servers:

JOLT
Barrysworld
Thrustworld
Blueyounder

[ 10-05-2002: Message edited by: Quicksolv ]

[ 10-05-2002: Message edited by: Quicksolv ]</p>

 

[Dokt]

I recently reinstalled CS to try out the latest 'anti-cheat' patch (ROFL at that - OGA-tastic) and was pinging about 43 to Barrysworld servers on my single ISDN line - Freeserve dial-up. Thus far I've been through pretty much ISP in operation in search of that elusive low ping/low latency connection - the best I had, believe it or not, was Sniffout. Freeserve for me (because as we all know, pings are hugely dependant on how much traffic your local exchange node's getting)is as good as Clara and Pipex.

And as for PC Gamer - yep - talking out of their arses. I used to work at Future Publishing and so have first-hand knowledge of working practices at that company. Their recent comments about Tribes 2 pretty much sum it up - hard to believe they said it was for broadband users only when it's the most forgiving multiplayer game on the planet with by far the most superior netcode of any game ever written - no f'ing way a 56k modemer can compete in Q3Arena against a cable/dsl user, but they can 0wn in Tribes 2 just like those with fat pipes.

And as has been pointed out - bonded ISDN lines will only have a small impact on your gaming - and then only in terms of packet loss - they'll have virtually no effect on ping.

Given the way DSL's gone to sh1t lately, and with cable users suddenly finding that their once mighty connection is now a packet loss nightmare, ISDN is a perfectly useable way of gaming online. <img src="graemlins/smiletear.gif" border="0" alt="[Smiletear]" />

 

[Scully]

Originally posted by Dokt:
<strong>I recently reinstalled CS to try out the latest 'anti-cheat' patch (ROFL at that - OGA-tastic) and was pinging about 43 to Barrysworld servers on my single ISDN line - Freeserve dial-up. Thus far I've been through pretty much ISP in operation in search of that elusive low ping/low latency connection - the best I had, believe it or not, was Sniffout. Freeserve for me (because as we all know, pings are hugely dependant on how much traffic your local exchange node's getting)is as good as Clara and Pipex.

And as for PC Gamer - yep - talking out of their arses. I used to work at Future Publishing and so have first-hand knowledge of working practices at that company. Their recent comments about Tribes 2 pretty much sum it up - hard to believe they said it was for broadband users only when it's the most forgiving multiplayer game on the planet with by far the most superior netcode of any game ever written - no f'ing way a 56k modemer can compete in Q3Arena against a cable/dsl user, but they can 0wn in Tribes 2 just like those with fat pipes.

And as has been pointed out - bonded ISDN lines will only have a small impact on your gaming - and then only in terms of packet loss - they'll have virtually no effect on ping.

Given the way DSL's gone to sh1t lately, and with cable users suddenly finding that their once mighty connection is now a packet loss nightmare, ISDN is a perfectly useable way of gaming online. <img src="graemlins/smiletear.gif" border="0" alt="[Smiletear]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>


Too True


but believe it or not I have won serveral Q3 DM's!

/Pats Rocket launcher

 

[Yak]

I love my T2..

In fact I think I have been spoiled by it, as NO other game comes even close to the netcode algorithm used by T2. I regularly play T2 on my ISDN and b4 that on my 56k, and have always had a gr8 game.

 

[kinetic]

A 56k modem is perfectly useable for online playing, but it doesnt make it any good. ISDN in my mind has been the biggest waste of money ive ever wasted. Thankfully my contract is almost up and as such will be retrying to get ADSL. I failed before on line noise, but with my new digital line perhaps itll help some. And besides a year later it should be easier to get the noise down.

ISDN never really took off for two simple reasons (bear in mind its been around since the 70's). To expensive and to rubbish. And before someone pipes up saying "rock solid stability with ISDN". This might be so, but its not exactly hard to get rock solid stabilty at 64 bloody kb. Hell ADSL will be rock solid at 64kb, hell ADSL is rock solid up to about 400kb(on a 512 line).

£30 Xtra a month for an Xtra 2kb/sec download, and a ping of 80 is hardly good.

 

[kinetic]

Oh and i fail to see how telling the truth is trolling.

Just because you dont like the truth does not mean it isnt true.

Ive had it for a year, i can take a pic of the damn HH box if you want with this bloody web page on the same pic. This has been my experience of the biggest waste of money and time in my life. I think its only right to tell ppl in my experince what they are going to get, because when i was looking into it, a lot of ISDN ********ers were telling me pings of 30 dl/s 9kb sec and so on, and i fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Coming to think about it, it was only ROSS, from this very site (Old Moderater) Who actually told me the truth. But i wanted to believe otherwise.

 

[overcorpes]

go away u bitter little man,what is better a ping of 60ms-150ms on isdn or a ping of 250-999 on 56k.ill bet u that if u cant adsl you will stay with isdn.