The Site > Old Forums > Qwest > Interleave

reply to ether_real

Re: Interleave

reply to dks7
I've been trying to avoid this thread like the plague, but I just couldn't stay out after reading.

As far as latency is concerned...

Most games today deal with packets based on timing, not time-of-receipt. That means, even if your data gets to the server faster, it has a time stamp on it, and the server adjusts at a certain threshold (READ : BOOTS FOR HIGH PINGS)
and applies the packets according to the time signature, not whether or not your 50 ms or 250 ms.

Most game servers nowadays boot you if your over 200 m/s.

Back in the laggy, pre internet gaming days I had a 14.4 connection to DWANGO, I was at 600 m/s then . . . with some massive long distance bills. All to be Space marine #1.

Now we have folks at 50 whining. Sorry guys, but ~50 or so ms latency from interleaving isn't causing you to suck.

I've had a the range of connections and latencies, since the early 90's. I've had Comcast, Qwest, numerous dialups and satellite connections. I worked at Tier 3 at Qwest for a number of months, and I have friends who work Verizon's tech support.

I didn't notice any supposed 'lag' from the interleaving after leaving comcast for qwest (moved and comcast wasn't available) This didn't affect my gaming at all.

50 m/s is how much time?

One-half, of one-tenth of a second.

I'm calling bs on this one.

Once again, you have crystalized my thoughts eloquently...

reply to dks7
50MS ping is great, but were reffering to 50MS just to your first hop, most game servers ive tried playing on close to me, most within my same state I get 100MS ping to, and u dont even wanna see the ones back east.

I know with my old dlink router it increased my ping times by around 10 to 20ms. It is really wonderful to run 2 routers back to back. Not.

reply to longstreet

reply to longstreet

reply to AthlGrond
BS? Hmm, so a host with 0 MS of latency has the sme advantage as someone in said hosts room with 50 MS of latency? Interesting, but wrong.

Oh, but it's only 1/2 a second, right? lol, I'm calling BS on you. 1/2 a second is the difference between a Gauss Rifle slug hitting you through earth or not. Or bullets still hitting you as you duck behind cover. Not noticeable? You, sir, are too funny.

Folks, a millisecond is one thousandth of a second. 500ms is one half second. 50ms is one tenth of one half second. Pretty small amount of time to squabble over!

»www.answers.com/topic/millisecond
--
My other passion is mountain biking. Info on the Colorado based Front Range Mountain Bike Patrol - FRMBP can be found at:»www.frmbp.org

reply to dks7
If there are big ping time differences, I can see an issue, but as long as the people in the game are at similar times, it just doesn't matter. If the game code sucks bad enough to make 100 milliseconds a big deal, or if you can't play with that tenth of a second time difference, you need to pick another game. This argument reminds me of the frames-per-second issue, where everyone complains about not being able to get 200+ fps, when the server (never mind any perception issues) only runs at 20-30.

reply to dks7
If you find a game you cannot win, why do you keep playing it? Why not go find one you CAN win?

This would include the 'game' you're playing here. Give it up. You're not going to 'win' this one either. Qwest is never going to do away with interleave...

On face value, you 'gamers' are simply a bunch of cheats...

That is, instead of adjusting your playing style to compensate for any latency you may be experiencing, you want to cheat the system by being able to move around faster so other ppl can't hit you, or whatever.

It's the antithesis of 'your' argument, repeated over-in-over again in these forums, ad naseum. You say that YOU are at an unfair advantage. The fact of the matter is, it is YOU that wants the unfair advantage, and Qwest will never give it to you, to the detriment of everyone else...

The thing that pisses me off about all this sophomoric [edit]****[/edit] is you expect the rest of us to suffer the consequences of lowering our 'interleave shields' (if you will) so you can cheat at your silly 'shoot-em-ups'.

Really! You guys need to forget Qwest and move up to 'cable'...
--
.:: Visit Vin DSL's Web Site | Try Vin DSL's Speed Test ::.

Your smoking crack, its a disadvantage to everyone playing on the server. They have a harder time hitting you and you have a harder time hitting them. Laggy players bring servers down.

If your not an avid gamer you have no reason to even post in this thread. Go find a quilting forum.

reply to dks7
Interleave is always a topic that brings out the best and worst in people. Everybody please back off the trolling, flaming and personal attacks.
--
My other passion is mountain biking. Info on the Colorado based Front Range Mountain Bike Patrol - FRMBP can be found at:»www.frmbp.org

reply to Vin DSL

While I do some online games, I'm Definately no where the enthusiasts that many of you seem to be. I have to side however with VIN on this one. (Not that he needs my assistance). When you're talking of delays because of interleaving and ping times, you're beating a dead horse that just can not hold water with logic.

There's 2 MAJOR arguments that will always side against the gamer's position on interleaving. 1st, even a 100ms delay against a 0ms delay, is a 1/10 of 1 SECOND. Do you understand 1/10 of a second difference. Considering that most people's eye/hand coordination reflex is much more than that, you're never going to convince Qwest that this 1/10 of a second is ruining your life. Especially those who are below 100ms and are in the 1/20th of a second crowd. There may be truth to the delay and your gaming experience, but when you're dealing in 1/10th and 1/20 of a second, they just aren't going to listen.

That brings up the 2nd argument. the MAIN reason that Qwest and others aren't going to give creedance to your 1/10th and 1/20th of a second delay, is because gamers in this position are a VERY SMALL percentage of Qwest DSL customers. If you think that the 1/10th and 1/20th of a second delay is a major issue, imagine this. Hard core gamers probably make up about 1% of Qwest DSL customers. Of that 1%, probably only 1/10th of that 1% is playing a game or in a position to be complaining about the latency and ping time. So the hard core complaining gamer is about the same percentage as the latency itself.

While I might not know exactly the percentage of Qwest DSL customers that are gamers, I do know how many DSL customers I see every day, and very very few of them are hard core gamers. That's also considering I am in a major college town with a large percentage of DSL customers being college and tech school students. With all these "Game Age" customers, the majority of DSL users are not concerned over the latency and ping time. They care more about download speed and streaming.

So, while this interleaving debate may go on for years to come, I recommend the same thing that VIN does. If the interleaving is so noticable to you, then LEAVE Qwest DSL and find something better for your needs. It is NOT FINANCIALLY feasible for Qwest to accomodate their DSL service for 1/10th of 1% of their customers. Hell, even if gamers made up 10%, it wouldn't justify it. Sorry if this rubs the gamers the wrong way, but it's the facts and the truth. Live with it until technology changes, WHICH IT WILL, or move on to something else. Later... Mike...

Well said Mike. I agree that major expenditures of capitol trying to please a small minority of people is a poor choice for most companies.

So why is it so expensive for Qwest to provide something that most other DSL providers do? (Why is it so difficult for Qwest to allow for fast path if the customer requests it when it appears to not be a problem for most other DSL providers?)
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

D:\Documents and Settings\PrimeArche>ping »www.velocitus.net
Ping request could not find host »www.velocitus.net. Please check the name
and try again.

D:\Documents and Settings\PrimeArche>ping www.velocitus.net

Pinging www.velocitus.net [205.162.184.11] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 205.162.184.11: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=48
Reply from 205.162.184.11: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=48
Reply from 205.162.184.11: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=48
Reply from 205.162.184.11: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 205.162.184.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 106ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 113ms

D:\Documents and Settings\PrimeArche>tracert www.velocitus.net

Tracing route to www.velocitus.net [205.162.184.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 4 ms
now take a nice look at this firs t to second hop and you tell me why we need a network latency of 43 ms to the second hop because of interleave cell correction?
to make it simple look here
Interleaved RS Corrected Bytes: 578
Interleaved Symbols with CRC Errors: 0
Interleave is also the reason for the 40 ms increase from the router to the first hop.
You dont see this with CAP dsl you only see this with DMT type because of how the signal is handled. Do some real research and find out why the hell Interleave is put into DMT adsl lines with this below.
Interleave S Downstream: 4
Interleave D Downstream: 16
Interleave R Downstream: 16
Interleave S Upstream: 8
Interleave D Upstream: 8
Interleave R Upstream: 16
The Real answers about interleave may be for error correction. Please take a look at this and then from there post an answer on why the hell a first hop of 40 ms is ok.

Tracing route to www.velocitus.net [205.162.184.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 4 ms take a look at this server that is in Boise Idaho and is a provider for the qwest adsl line. I should see this at 50 ms but for the reason of interleave its at 107 ms and its only 3 miles away. by the way please look at the second hop. this in networking would be unacceptable in any buiesness with any provider, But qwest.

Tracing route to velocitus.net
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms
2 43 ms 43 ms 52 ms
3 44 ms 42 ms 42 ms
4 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
5 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms
6 67 ms 67 ms 66 ms
7 84 ms 67 ms 67 ms
8 67 ms 68 ms 67 ms
9 69 ms 68 ms 68 ms
10 70 ms 69 ms 69 ms
11 93 ms 93 ms 92 ms
12 88 ms 87 ms 89 ms
13 98 ms 97 ms 97 ms
14 104 ms 103 ms 101 ms
15 106 ms 107 ms 110 ms
16 104 ms 103 ms 103 ms
17 106 ms 107 ms 106 ms velocitus.net

Trace complete.

by the way im only 3000 feet from the dslam there shouldnt be a high latency of 45 ms on second hop.