dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
125788
share rss forum feed view:
watch
prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · next


Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI

1 edit
reply to stainedClass

Re: [Networking] Online Gaming on HughesNet

Right on! Further proof that (most) MMORPGs do, in fact, work under HughesNet.

- Team Fortress 2 and Doomsource ports and variants (such as Mega Man 8-Bit Deathmatch) (Not playable!) -- What can I say? I got curious about these specifically... So here's the thing. Spectating seems to work off-and-on, but actually playing the games? Team Fortress 2 almost seems to work, but will randomly jerk you around the map between where you were headed and where you were. The Doom source ports do the same. But spectating, on the other hand, seems to work about 90% of the time. There's some irregularity while watching Doom source ports, but Team Fortress 2's spectator mode seems to work darn near flawlessly, as far as I can tell.
--
ISP: HughesNet Satellite Internet
Modem Model: HN9000
Service Plan: ProPlus (525MB/day, 1.6 Mbps Down 250 Kbps Up)


stainedClass

join:2010-05-20
Winston, OR
reply to Doc Lithius

My first post on this site...

I probably just missed it somebody else bringing it up on the thread, but I have to add DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online) to the list of playable games on Hughesnet. There is a bout a 1-2 second delay on performing hotbar actions and picking up/viewing items but is otherwise very playable for most of the day - even at peak hours.



YUGIOHHHHHH

@direcpc.com
reply to Doc Lithius

CARD MAACTTTHHHHH!!!!!!



agamer

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

updated games that work online

guitar hero 5 does work but only if you have some friends
and you can invite them it takes about a few tries

rockband games works very good
family game night
guitar hero 3



Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI
reply to Doc Lithius

Hey! Finally, a new game to add to the list!

- Transformice (Works!) -- There's a little oddness here and there, but it works surprisingly well on HughesNet! You can spawn things, collect cheese (after a second's lag), and play forever (or until the server crashes). It's a very cute and fun game, too.



wowo

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

yea not sure what this is worth but this was today, hate hughesnet. the second is to wow.com the third and last one are to wow servers. please delete this post if it shouldbnt be here or is to big

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\ben>ping yahoo.com -t

Pinging yahoo.com [209.191.122.70] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=707ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=856ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1035ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=559ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=698ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=996ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=576ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=735ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=655ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=784ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=953ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1092ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=569ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=877ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1046ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=559ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=867ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1016ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=727ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=897ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1026ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=578ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=876ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1025ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=576ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=736ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=863ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1021ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=589ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=728ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=874ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1020ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=553ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=707ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=685ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=832ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=972ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=551ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=709ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=848ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1004ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=568ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=720ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=865ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1015ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=575ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=723ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=881ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1020ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=568ms TTL=51
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=646ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=815ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=939ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1097ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=564ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=723ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=872ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1030ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1046ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=569ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 209.191.122.70:
Packets: Sent = 67, Received = 66, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 551ms, Maximum = 1097ms, Average = 794ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>
C:\Users\ben>ping wow.com -t

Pinging wow.com [207.200.74.38] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 207.200.74.38:
Packets: Sent = 7, Received = 0, Lost = 7 (100% loss),
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>ping 12.129.225.82 -t

Pinging 12.129.225.82 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 12.129.225.82:
Packets: Sent = 19, Received = 0, Lost = 19 (100% loss),
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>ping yahoo.com -t

Pinging yahoo.com [209.191.122.70] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=681ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=568ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=557ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=706ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1013ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=569ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=715ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=874ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1034ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=554ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=713ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=862ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1012ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=588ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=887ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1026ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=576ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=875ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1043ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=558ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=707ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=856ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1004ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=586ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=725ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=893ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1027ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=568ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=667ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=803ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=963ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=542ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=690ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=847ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=997ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=566ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=715ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=874ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1043ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=548ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=707ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=856ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1015ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=706ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=875ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1014ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=727ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=876ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1095ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=599ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=767ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=885ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=1054ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=559ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=896ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=536ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=695ms TTL=51
Reply from 209.191.122.70: bytes=32 time=813ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 209.191.122.70:
Packets: Sent = 64, Received = 64, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 536ms, Maximum = 1095ms, Average = 779ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>ping mindbodyonline.com -t

Pinging mindbodyonline.com [72.29.171.97] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=884ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1043ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1128ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1169ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1038ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=712ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=872ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1041ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1128ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1149ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1145ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=578ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=678ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=876ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1025ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1158ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1137ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1156ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=869ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=865ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1033ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1129ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=875ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1044ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1138ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1157ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1158ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1149ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1147ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1175ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1138ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=609ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=767ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=921ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1070ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=1138ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=609ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=738ms TTL=52
Reply from 72.29.171.97: bytes=32 time=888ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 72.29.171.97:
Packets: Sent = 49, Received = 49, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 578ms, Maximum = 1175ms, Average = 974ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>ping 206.12.23.110 -t

Pinging 206.12.23.110 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 206.12.23.110:
Packets: Sent = 3, Received = 0, Lost = 3 (100% loss),
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\ben>



wowo

@direcway.com
reply to rlwpub

nah i do the downloads in the free night time. and the option to update while playor after are turned off, i do it manually since i have so many wow folders to make sure they update right. and since then it has got worse. im up to 80mb per hoour on single accounts. im not that smart with internet traffic or how it works but my idea is some how im getting huge packet loss or something. when i started it was 5-15mb per hour per account, now its 60+.


rlwpub

join:2002-08-27
US
reply to zeddlar

said by zeddlar:

Nope, I think it was a problem in the modem because although both games patched the day I did it, the latency dropped to around 1500 when I reset the modem and the patches were done. I am sure both games didn't have the same problems they patched for although WOW was having latency problems before EQ2 wasn't that I had seen at least except for me.
I just played for 2 hours. Ping times where consistent between 770 and 900 for the entire time.

zeddlar

join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
·McDonald County ..
reply to rlwpub

Nope, I think it was a problem in the modem because although both games patched the day I did it, the latency dropped to around 1500 when I reset the modem and the patches were done. I am sure both games didn't have the same problems they patched for although WOW was having latency problems before EQ2 wasn't that I had seen at least except for me.
--
HughesNet elite plan/.74 dish w/1watt trans. / 9000 modem / 3 computers on a linksy's wired network


rlwpub

join:2002-08-27
US

1 edit
reply to wowo

WOWO,

Sounds like you may have download updates while playing on.


zeddlar

join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
·McDonald County ..
reply to wowo

Well I don't know about that, we still havn't fapped but it would apear from our point of view that Hughes has figuredout how to throttle gamers. I am not getting pings under 3500 on wow and my wife can't get pings less than 4000 on eq2. Not sure what is up with this yet but something is goofy cause ping tests to yahoo and google still average 700 or less and speed is still great most of the time.
--
HughesNet elite plan/.74 dish w/1watt trans. / 9000 modem / 3 computers on a linksy's wired network



wowo

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

well, i was the one posting about multiboxing and things have changed. not sure if any one else has noticed this but we got fapped for the first time a few weeks ago. since then wow went from using 10-15megs a hour to 70-80. now my bank toon with no addons standing gets me fapped in 4-5 hours. i dont know what changed, but for months and months i could have 5 instances running all day and never thought about it. now it will cause me to get fapped withen a hour or so on pro plan. screw hughesnet, moving to a place with service in 3 days.


twiztid

join:2010-06-01
reply to Doc Lithius

ok so i tested left 4 dead 1 and gears of war 2 last night. so here's how it went.
left 4 dead 1 played pretty good with not much lag, so its very playable when you can find a match...
gears of war 2 worked but with very noticeable lag when running and shooting but even tho it lagged me and my brother played matches in split screen most of the night. so thats it for now, i still have more games to test...

add me on xbox live
gamertag: SAiNTlY TWiZTiD



septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to zeddlar

World of Warcraft works on Hughesnet. I would not recommend pursueing any type of PvP goals with it. You are simply too far behind in an environment that requires split second reaction times. Big PvP is fine where lots of players are around but PvP in areans or dueling will just result in a headache.

Its hard enough raiding in WoW with Hughesnet. You have to be the best player in your raid just to be average. You will find yourself being constantly called out for standing in the fire or not moving fast enough when you get a debuff that requries you to run away. You always have to be on top of your game when playing in satellite internet. Its even better to use addons like DBM so you can get an idea of about when the boss is about to do something so you can prepare to move incase it targets you. Even though DBM will still be off by a couple seconds because of latency.


twiztid

join:2010-06-01
reply to Doc Lithius

this thread has been a big help to me, thanks for staring it!!
ok so here goes. iv test out resident evil 5 and it worked great for me, the only lag that i had was when i shot a enemy it took like one second for the bullet to hit him. the only time it was a problem was when ur getting attacked by more them 3 enemies at the same time then the bullet lag really showed !! ok so tonight im going to test out: left 4 dead 1 and 2, army of two 1 and 2, halo3 odst, gears of war 1 and 2, rainbow six Vegas 2. i also have aliens vs predator but i might teast it as well even tho i dont really play it.
and it would be great to meet ppl who have the same lag to play games with, then you wouldnt have to worry about ppl getting peed off cause of the lag. but if anyong is up for it let me know !!
my email: twisted.cyrus@gmail.com



voges

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

On PS3 all the versions of gta4 seem to work alright for me....i did party mode with a friend he said it went fine for him to (except when we were both in a car, helicopter worked fine)



smoyerxN7

@k12.pa.us
reply to Doc Lithius

how do lower end "not as popular" FPS on xbox live work? games like FarCry2 and RS: Vegas 2??? these are 2 of my favorites one. I will be getting Hughesnet ProPlus package...i know i wont be playin' Call of Duty: MW2 any time soon on it but i'd like to know about these games...

Also if you find someone else with the same lag time or ping time as you and play with them, say co-op or something, it really wouldnt matter would it(assuming they both lag alot)


Vypus

join:2010-05-18
reply to Doc Lithius

lost planet 2 works on the xbox 360, you just gotta watch your usage on the multiplayer aspect, other then that you can play coop campaign all day long



Seven

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

Thanks for compiling this thread. My question is about turbopage and online gaming. Is having it on or off better? I tried doing tests myself running WoW with no other computers on the network, but even then my ping was spread across too big of a variance to really compare the two settings.



Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI
reply to Doc Lithius

I have an update for Mabinogi... Seems I jumped the gun a little, there.

- Mabinogi (Works fairly well!) -- As first, I thought there was no debilitating lag in the game. Turns out that I was wrong. Once you get into any sort of fight at all (which is something I didn't test prior), the lag shows its ugly head. Seems that while the combat is turn-based (sort of), even if you input your commands in advance, you're never really able to execute them within an acceptable amount of time.
Let's say you just knocked down a random monster. The logical thing to do next would be to hit either Counterattack or Defense to brace yourself since they have invincibility time while getting back up. On a normal connection, you could pop the command in and execute it before the enemy got near you. On HughesNet, however, the enemy can easily reach you before you've gotten anywhere near finished executing your command!
Here's another very annoying example. You go to attack an enemy with a close-range attack. The enemy won't hold still for whatever reason. Rather than swing at the enemy and clip it as it squirms away, you end up perpetually chasing it until it decides to sit still or potentially attack first!

All this doesn't make the game unplayable, however. The game is still very much playable and enjoyable despite the lag and netcode goofs. Moving around works fine (unless you snag on something, which may happen if you're not careful), interaction works just fine, actions work alright. The usual lag rules apply as well. It's just slightly irritating, is all. Heh.
--
ISP: HughesNet Satellite Internet
Modem Model: HN9000
Service Plan: ProPlus (525MB/day, 1.6 Mbps Down 250 Kbps Up)


Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

I thought I would update this and say that I just tried Resident Evil 5 online.

I'm not sure how Games For Windows Live works, but ingame everything seemed fairly fluid such as movements albeit a brief delay with some actions. I'm not sure if this is indicative of real world performance but on my end there didn't seem to be much lag or delays at all.

If there is anyone else here that has tried Resident Evil 5 online on a Hughesnet connection please let me know how it performs for you. Perhaps this might be another game that is somewhat playable on satellite without much lag.
--
»www.xtemu.com/forum/index.html
»www.xtemu.com/forum/portal.html


Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

Well I guess I chalk it up and try it in a bit, just afraid I'll get yelled at for the lag or get kicked.

I'm not sure if the game is hosted locally, or it uses Microsoft's or the developers/publishers servers when creating a co-op game.



Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI
reply to Doc Lithius

We know, X. Either no one has, or no one's telling at this point. XD

In other news, new game to add to the list:
- Mabinogi (Works almost perfectly!) -- As far as I can tell, Mabinogi works just fine on HughesNet. The only snags I've noticed are the usual 1-second input lag (except when just walking places) and an occasional hitch when loading new textures or new areas. I'm not altogether sure the intro area loads correctly, either, but then I've never played the game until I got HughesNet.
--
ISP: HughesNet Satellite Internet
Modem Model: HN9000
Service Plan: ProPlus (525MB/day, 1.6 Mbps Down 250 Kbps Up)


Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

Just wondering if anyone has tried Resident Evil 5 (PC) co-op online mode on Hughesnet and how well it performs.


Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

I know I've tried Team Fortress 2 on Steam about six months or a year ago and kept jumping all over the place, so I can confirm that isn't playable with Hughesnet.


diragono

join:2005-07-21
Decatur, TN

1 edit
reply to Xtreme2damax

I've not had a Hughes system since the HN7000 first hit, but I was actually a pretty avid gamer with my 7000. I'm sure not much has changed with Hughes since I had it. Warcraft 3 ROC and TFT worked pretty well, obviously about a 1.5-3 second delay between when you click to move and it actually happens, but overall worked about as well as dial-up did for that game, especially on DOTA. Sometimes during prime-time you'll lag a lot and sometimes disconnect, but rarely. One thing to note about WC3, if you use the matchmaking service you never have to worry about this, but if you play custom games, never ever ever try to host a game. Everyone will lag worse than COD4 on dial-up, lol. Command and Conquer Red Alert 2, Generals, and Tiberium Wars worked ok, similar results as that for Warcraft, however in the game lobby it shows a ping indicator and a lot of the times with you never leaving red, you'll get the boot. City of Heroes doesn't work very well, it's netcode differs from that of WoW, when you start running after a few seconds you start warping around. Diablo II, from what I remember worked ok when I played it on my DW6000, but I did not hardly play enough for it to matter. As the OP said, Planetside, surprisingly works quite well! Also, I have recently played Rockband 2 on the WII at my friends who has a HN9000 and it seemed to work flawlessly, can be a little slow finding bandmates but other then that once in game, worked fine.
--
The bad part about living in a rural area...Verizon 3G connected through Cradlepoint Router. 1.3Mbps Top Speed.
Desktop Computer: Alienware Area-51 ALX
Laptop: Acer 5570Z
Netbook: Acer Aspire One AO532H

Expand your moderator at work

Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

Re: [Networking] Online Gaming on HughesNet

I think some games play as well as the do on Hughesnet because they have good netcode that allows them to compensate for the higher pings of Hughesnet.

I would like to know as I've mentioned above if anyone has tried the Resident Evil 5 (PC) online mode on a Hughesnet connection.

I also own other Games for Windows Live titles and would be interested to hear what other GFWL titles run well on Hughesnet.
--
»www.xtemu.com/forum/index.html
»www.xtemu.com/forum/portal.html



Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI
reply to Doc Lithius

That's a good question! I hope someone can submit the answer to that question as well as the question I'm about to propose:
Given that certain first-person shooters on the XBox 360 work just fine, I have to ask. Halo-fever is in full swing with the BETA testing of Halo: Reach...so does the current version of Halo: Reach work with HughesNet? I myself don't have an XBox 360, but I'm sure a number of people here would like to know.

Also, to whomever stickied this topic: You are awesome! I'll do my best to test as many games as I possibly can and report my findings back here for future reference!
--
ISP: HughesNet Satellite Internet
Modem Model: HN9000
Service Plan: ProPlus (525MB/day, 1.6 Mbps Down 250 Kbps Up)


Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius

Hello folks, I have a question and I'm about to prepare myself for the obvious answer. I thought it wouldn't hurt to at least ask..

I was wondering if anyone ever tried the online mode of games that use Games for Windows Live and how these games would work over Hughesnet?

I have Resident Evil 5 and wanted to try the online mode. I started a game for someone to join in but I panicked and quit for fear there would be complaints about lag or I would be kicked anyway because of high pings.
--
»www.xtemu.com/forum/index.html
»www.xtemu.com/forum/portal.html

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · next