When they post it. They're creating a magazine or something and have it in there.Originally Posted by dragon
#81
When they post it. They're creating a magazine or something and have it in there.
#82
What hasn't been answered?
#83
As I said, working it out isn't really possible. You have more cars means more data between cars, but you also have more cars having more effect on the track and this information needing to be relayed. The first post contains actual reading results, it's as accurate as it can be really up to the number of cars listed. We'll be able to get higher readings during the open test I'm sure.
Tim, I know that each car generates surface changes, but:
1. Any car generates some changes for its own. I suspect client sends only those changes - after that it means it will not affect exponent of the server traffic function.
Then we get function
y = (x+surface_changes)2
2. In worse case, server might send to clients whole surface state. I said in worse (in opposite to sending changes). But even if, the data traffic will be only greater by such amount of data and not depending on car quantity. It's quite intuitive I think.
then we get function
y = x2 + surface_state
I really cannot imagine how we may get something like exponent 3.
But there is nothing left than wait for release... and then for fixes I believe.
MaXyM, I guess you could calculate a worst case scenario which would assume that all clients are receiving the most detailed updates possible. You should then be able to come up with a basic calculation. Then you would know that in the worst case you will need X amount of bandwidth. But could probably get away with less do to the throttling that rF is capable of. Again, only speaking of experience with hosting in rF1. But I can't believe rF2 will be much different. Who knows, we may even have options to disable live track and weather to reduce the bandwidth requirements even more.
with great sadness I have to say that almost 90% of countrys in Latin America dont have a conection like rF2 need to host. it's a shame left out in this way
Actually we can safetly host 40 cars with 5mbp simetric.. i know in rF2 will be much more data to transmit but if your info is correct, the bandwidth in rF2 has to be five times rF1 needs
@Noel
rF1 (as well as other games with the same client-server model) matches what I said: server traffic is quadratic function of competing clients. Throttling is a feature which makes traffic lower in some situations (let's say in most). But with throttling or not function doesn't change exponent.
That's why I'm still surprised about rF2 traffic measurements. it is not about numbers in overall. SInce there are more features - I would not problem even with 100kBps sent by single car. The same with 23Mbps needed - if features requires such traffic, it must be.
But how numbers grow in relation to cars number- this is what I'm talking about. It simply cannot be exponent 3 function if everything is done correctly.
I know that South Americans are a minority of the customers of rFactor and that it is very difficult to adapt the engine to send less data and that our low bandwidth is our fault and not ISI's fault, I know that it is not worthwhile to remove features to the other customers because of a minority that cannot find or pay for high bandwidth servers in their countries.
Knowing all that I will anyway ask ISI for a favor: please consider an option to remove features and reduce the bandwidth requirements, something like 10 megabits per second upload for 30 cars is affordable in South America, asking more than that the prices spike up and most teams will not be able to pay for a server in their country, needing to use a distant server and having much latency.
Though that latency can be tolerated, is not very nice really, it complicates things, causes accidents, etc.
Maybe livetrack, marbles, drying path of the cars, etc. could be disabled and save those bytes to reduce bandwidth to acceptable levels in our region.
This would be a feature useful for two years only.
I know its hard, I know that it is anoying, so, if it is not implemented I will understand and will not have hard feelings.
I am afraid though that maybe people here will stay with rFactor 1 instead of using a distant server if thats not implemented.
So, you have my wish and my fingers crossed! :-)
Thanks a lot for listening and.... KEEP UP THE SUPERB WORK! rFactor 2 seems to be shaping up to be a piece of art and not a simulation program.
Great but i rent my server because you leave a pc on 24hrs and at some point it will go on fire lol
#90
How hot do your machines run!?
Must be the tropical weather in the UK
Ok, no dedicated Linux server.. but at least it can run/has been tested with "wine" ?
#93
Joe mentioned wine, but it's not officially supported in any way - yet.
Possiblity to play in LAN ?
Ugh. Please tell me you're reading other threads... this is answered already.
where ?
It was all over this forum, a real ****stormCheck out rFactor 2 section.
Right now after running codemasters 2011 on rfactor my gtx 480 zotac says its 85deg thats with an NRT Gaming serverHow hot do your machines run!?
Did you turn your fan speed up on the card micheal.
#100
Hm, that's not too hot if you have adequate space and flow around it...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote