Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2006-06-18 5:21 pm
Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
How many of you have ran Halo multiplayer and used multiple network connections in your testing? I'm asking because I've always had my PC either directly connected to my DSL modem or through a router via wires, so the only lag I've had to deal with is my own crummy connection. However, due to some shuffling around in my house, I may have to move my PC to Siberia where the only way I'll be able to get a connection is through 802.11g, since I unfortunately won't be able to snake a wire all the way up there.
Is the lag comparable, within a few milliseconds, or is it unfathomable to go about it this way? The distance is 25 feet with 4 walls in the way of the main router that the computer will be pulling the connection from, including one wet wall.
Thanks for any insight.
Spirit was crushed; now is fading, But I want to help make things right.
Because I can see and I can feel, and you can see and you can feel
So why don't we both either stand up and fight
Or at least together we'll call it a night.
Offline
#2 2006-06-18 7:04 pm
- sosumi
- numbery
- Royal Wombat
- From: North Mexico
- Registered: 1999-02-21
- Posts: 17513
Re: Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
In my experience, play is pretty intolerable. The fact that it's wireless g doesn't matter because no average internet connection can saturate b in the first place. What is miniscule lag from a wired setup becomes loads of other players teleporting around on the screen, shots missing pretty consistently, and of course, dying before you know what hit you.
Sucks.
Offline
#3 2006-06-18 8:20 pm
Re: Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
I was dreadfully hoping this would be the answer I'd get.
I'll see about forcing the Mini into Siberia. It's not supposed to have a round the clock connection, anyway.
Spirit was crushed; now is fading, But I want to help make things right.
Because I can see and I can feel, and you can see and you can feel
So why don't we both either stand up and fight
Or at least together we'll call it a night.
Offline
#4 2006-06-19 2:38 pm
- [MA]PaveHammer
- The Cooking Guy
- From: Lost
- Registered: 2001-06-03
- Posts: 1283
- Website
Re: Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
I'm using a b connection for my Xbox and I find that the conenction is ok. The real problem is how inconsistent it is. There will be times when I get a solid, lossless conection. Other times the 360 can't even connect to Xbox live, let alone play a game.
It's fine if you don't want to start running 50 feet of gigabit ethernet.
"My end. It justifies my means."
Offline
#5 2006-06-19 4:38 pm
- LLEVIATHANN
- Itch you can't scratch
- From: 22 Acacia Avenue
- Registered: 2001-03-14
- Posts: 7158
Re: Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
802.whatever inherently has more TCP/IP overhead than a plain jane copper connection. Add security to the mix and it gets worse. After that throw in your neighbors 2.4GHz cordless phone that causes your router/switch to channel hop looking for a clean frequency.
Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed. - Mark Twain
Offline
#6 2006-06-19 5:26 pm
- sosumi
- numbery
- Royal Wombat
- From: North Mexico
- Registered: 1999-02-21
- Posts: 17513
Re: Halo Performance 802.11g vs. Cat100
[MA]PaveHammer wrote:
I'm using a b connection for my Xbox and I find that the conenction is ok. The real problem is how inconsistent it is. There will be times when I get a solid, lossless conection. Other times the 360 can't even connect to Xbox live, let alone play a game.
It's fine if you don't want to start running 50 feet of gigabit ethernet.
That's different because Xbox Live has been designed to handle latency a bit better. Though even still I don't think I'd ever put an Xbox on a wireless connection, especially since the adapters are $99. My parents' ~700kbps DSL connection can handle playable Xbox Live games, but wouldn't do so hot with computer stuff.
Offline
