"Just because you don''t make the connection between inherent latencies of TCP and the widespread use of UDP doesn''t mean that my explanation of it is irrelevant."

My question had NOTHING, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with latency. You bringing up UDP is just as obnoxious and uncalled for as going into a VB thread and talking about C++.

I don''t know what the hell you were responding to because it certainly wasn''t the question I had.

For future reference don''t answer questions people didn''t ask. Chances are the person asked the question because they didn''t know the answer to THAT question. Assuming people don''t know something else they didn''t ask about and going on and on about it is incredibly insulting.

You have NO idea what I do and do not know. Assuming what I do and do not know (or anyone else for that matter) is completly out of line.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com ]

Hahahahahahaha, this is just getting funny now.

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
No I didn''t.

Why don''t you try actually reading the thread instead of glossing over it?

---

I did !!

The first rude thing I saw was this (by you):

quote:

---

That''s great you''re so educated in UDP and want to share this knowledge but I''m working with TCP/IP and am looking for TCP/IP solutions. All of my threads have been about TCP and you consistantly try to sell me on the benifits of UDP.

I''m perfectly aware when UDP is needed and when TCP will be sufficient. When I need help with UDP, I''ll let you know. Thanks.

---

Maybe in your world that is not rude. But it sure is in mine.


All Fingh did to piss you off was this:
"It is also one of many reasons most serious game projects rely on UDP for time-sensitive data."

If that''s all it takes to piss you off then I''m really sorry for you. I mean that. You must be angry pretty much all the time.

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
My question had NOTHING, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with latency. You bringing up UDP is just as obnoxious and uncalled for as going into a VB thread and talking about C++.

---

I try to avoid posts like this one but Kalvin, do you not realise that you did ask a question about latency? Read your first post below:

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
I''m using a non-blocking TCP/IP server. I can send up to two messages just fine. But when I fire off 3 messages to the same destination one right after the other, the third message is lost but Winsock doesn''t report any errors. The three messages total 94 bytes.

If I put in a 100msec delay between messages all the messages arrive fine.

Unless on the client side the last two messages are being combined in the recieve buffer as one message, but that shouldn''t happen.

-edit-
Unfortunatly it is. When messages are sent too fast they''re combined into one. The client just needs to recognize when a message actually contains two or more messages. Fortunatly all messages come with a length value so figuring out which need to be broken up is easy.

Ben

---

Notice the sentence fragments, "100msec delay", "When messages are sent too fast", etc. What you were describing is how TCP/IP can combine what you thought were distinct messages (ala UDP) into one.

If you ask people for help, just because they offer a suggestion that you don''t like or think is irrelevant, don''t go getting all snotty on them:

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
That''s great you''re so educated in UDP and want to share this knowledge but I''m working with TCP/IP and am looking for TCP/IP solutions. All of my threads have been about TCP and you consistantly try to sell me on the benifits of UDP.

I''m perfectly aware when UDP is needed and when TCP will be sufficient. When I need help with UDP, I''ll let you know. Thanks.

---

If you can''t see how people would find that rude then I''m sorry.

------

Anyhow, this thread has served it purpose and a moderator should probably close it as no useful information is being posted.

Dire Wolf
www.digitalfiends.com

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
My question had NOTHING, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with latency. You bringing up UDP is just as obnoxious and uncalled for as going into a VB thread and talking about C++.

I don't know what the hell you were responding to because it certainly wasn't the question I had.

For future reference don't answer questions people didn't ask. Chances are the person asked the question because they didn't know the answer to THAT question. Assuming people don't know something else they didn't ask about and going on and on about it is incredibly insulting.

You have NO idea what I do and do not know. Assuming what I do and do not know (or anyone else for that matter) is completly out of line.

---

My friend, you have made it perfectly clear what you don't understand, no assumptions needed... Your question had everything to with inherent latency in TCP. And you are the first person I have ever encountered that is so puffed up that they complain about someone offering too much information...

I'd suggest you drop the chip, and just go work on your project now (as I suggested earlier). Send me e-mail if you want to continue this discussion. Thanks.

[edited by - fingh on July 15, 2002 4:03:46 PM]

"What you were describing is how TCP/IP can combine what you thought were distinct messages (ala UDP) into one."

The "latency" as I was talking about was (as it turns out) just needed in order to let the buffer clear before the next message was sent so they wouldn''t combine.

It had nothing to do with UDP even if you''d like to interpret it as so. It was a pretty simple question and the fact that I even posted the answer should have been a giant clue that talking about anything but how to deal with combined messages was irrelavant. Combined messages have NOTHING to do with latency.

"If you can''t see how people would find that rude then I''m sorry."

It was rude. But it wasn''t insulting. I''ve already explained why I said it.

Fingh is like Amazon gone wrong.

"Looks like you didn''t know that TCP combines messages, here''s some other things you might not know."

That''s rude and obnoxious. If I had a question about latency I would have asked about latency. If I had a question about UDP I would have asked about UDP.

Not a very difficult concept. If I ask a straight question, I expect a straight answer. Going on and on about things you assume I don''t know about is just rude and I''ll respond as such.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com ]

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
"What you were describing is how TCP/IP can combine what you thought were distinct messages (ala UDP) into one."

The "latency" as I was talking about was (as it turns out) just needed in order to let the buffer clear before the next message was sent so they wouldn''t combine.

It had nothing to do with UDP even if you''d like to interpret it as so. It was a pretty simple question and the fact that I even posted the answer should have been a giant clue that talking about anything but how to deal with combined messages was irrelavant. Combined messages have NOTHING to do with latency.

---

Combined messages usually happen in very high or very low latency conditions. I''d say that''s at least a cirumstantial link.

Kalvin, stop trying to ''run'' the thread. If people want to talk about UDP, they are free to. You''re not only only person who''s going to read this thread looking for info. It is perfectly right and appropriate for posters to provide a full, complete, and general answer, not one tailored to your specific situation.

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
I''m using a non-blocking TCP/IP server. I can send up to two messages just fine. But when I fire off 3 messages to the same destination one right after the other, the third message is lost but Winsock doesn''t report any errors. The three messages total 94 bytes.

If I put in a 100msec delay between messages all the messages arrive fine.

Unless on the client side the last two messages are being combined in the recieve buffer as one message, but that shouldn''t happen.

-edit-
Unfortunatly it is. When messages are sent too fast they''re combined into one. The client just needs to recognize when a message actually contains two or more messages. Fortunatly all messages come with a length value so figuring out which need to be broken up is easy.

---

Your original post.

quote:

---

Not a very difficult concept. If I ask a straight question, I expect a straight answer. Going on and on about things you assume I don''t know about is just rude and I''ll respond as such.

---

Your last post.

You never even ASKED a question KalvinB... yeah, simple concept isn''t it? You spewed forth less than correct information, so I gave a lengthy explanation of what was really happening - exactly pertinent to the issue you posted. One more reason these are called DISCUSSION forums. Again, not necessarily JUST for you. Stop bringing me back into this discussion with your slander. If you want to address me or my posts, do it via e-mail, it''s in my profile.

It's not slander.

I gave a very clear explaination of what was going on and what I was looking for a solution to. As I said, the fact I posted a solution with code should have been a giant clue as to what exactly I was looking for. All you offered was a lengthy post about nothing that I was inquiring about. "Why" it's happening has zero relavence to how to deal with it. There was a very clear implied question and answer to that question in my first post.

"Again, not necessarily JUST for you"

If you want to go off and start going on about what else you think I don't know, don't act so surprised that I don't react kindly to it.

If you want to explain in great length about latency and UDP, GameDev is looking for more tutorials and articles. You could also post the information in another thread.

It was very inappropriate to post it here.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com ]

[edited by - KalvinB on July 15, 2002 4:39:13 PM]

"I''d say that''s at least a cirumstantial link."

That doesn''t make it relavent to the solution. I didn''t have to account for latency to deal with combined packets. I offered the code solution that works with my Winsock class which I released some time ago.

"It is perfectly right and appropriate for posters to provide a full, complete, and general answer, not one tailored to your specific situation."

It''s perfectly rude and obnoxious to tell me what I do and do not know.

If people want to give a more detailed answer then that''s fine. I don''t appreciate people acting as though since I didn''t realize TCP combined packets they need to teach me a dozen other things they read in the Winsock FAQ which I''m perfectly capable of reading myself.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com ]