dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
134049
share rss forum feed view:
normal
prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · next

twiztid

join:2010-06-01
reply to Doc Lithius

Re: [Networking] Online Gaming on HughesNet

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


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.

zeddlar

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

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 ..
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
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.


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+.


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>


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.


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


YUGIOHHHHHH

@direcpc.com
reply to Doc Lithius
CARD MAACTTTHHHHH!!!!!!

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.



Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI

1 edit
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)


Entity

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius
I can't even play WOW. My FAP limit overloads overnight when i'm not even on, or anyone else is.
HughesNet hates me.

Xtreme2damax

join:2007-03-21
Port Byron, NY
reply to Doc Lithius
I think the netcode that TF2 uses is poor, especially when I can play Resident Evil 5 with little delays on Hughesnet.

@Entity: If you're modem was off, then it sounds like you got hit with another one of the joys of being on Hughesnet, Phantom downloads that put you over the limit even when you haven't downloaded anything.

We don't get hit with the Phantom downloads like we used to, but I know we aren't using the bandwidth that Hughesnet is claiming we are using and our router is encrypted with the strongest consumer encryption. Automatic updates are disabled on all the computers as well.
--
»www.xtemu.com/forum/index.html
»www.xtemu.com/forum/portal.html


n17

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius
I am currently addicted to League of Legends after quitting WoW. Does anyone know when it would be ideal to play? So far i feel that before 4pm and after midnight are the best to play and not get disconnected every minute. Anyone know exact or close to exact numbers?


Piemonster8

@direcpc.com
reply to Doc Lithius
anyone know if starcraft 2 will be playable?


Diecast

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius
Well i got this sevice a year ago now. I play EQ2. When i first got it it absolty work great even in x4 raids was very little lag what so ever.
Now right at the 30 "trial" period i got a call from Hughesnet saying seemed be a system problem and was sending tech out free of charge. The tech told me the power settings where to high. Since then lag issues been bad. Now i look around more and more people are getting this service around me the lag issue is so great is no way to play hardly at all.

broadwaybluz

join:2010-07-28
Montgomery, LA
reply to Doc Lithius
Hey, I just thought that I add in my 2 cents. I put a post up on my personal blog about Xbox Live and Hughesnet. »broadwayblues.wordpress.com/2010···nternet/

Basically, somethings like Netflix require the Turbopage feature to be turned off, and other things require it to be turned on...

Personally, I play a Hunter on WoW to deal with the latency, and overall, things are manageable on there.


Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI

1 edit
reply to Doc Lithius
Got another one you guys might know of.

- Minecraft Classic (Works!) -- I really shouldn't have to say this anymore, but as is the norm...expect 1-2 second delays before you have an actual impact on your surroundings and for your chat to send. Otherwise? Works pretty darn well... Not sure about the new version of Minecraft, though.

Edit:
- Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (Works!, info contributed by dave_ca) -- As with Warcraft III and Heroes of Newerth, there's about a second delay before commands are carried out, but it does work! Exciting news for you sci-fi RTS fans out there indeed.

dave_ca
Premium
join:2004-09-01
Royalton, NB
reply to Piemonster8
Yes and it works well, I do not notice any slow downs at all. There is a delay in given units commands, however I say its very playable.


Doc Lithius

join:2009-08-19
Rock, MI
Oh? Well alright then! I'll update the post. Thank you very much.


McShea

@direcway.com
To those wondering about wow pings being high, it simply depends on the server you play on. If you are playing on a west coast server and you are on the east coast your pings will be much much higher, which sucks if you are already settled on a server but if you have the option to "Server shop" find one with a nice low ping.

kenlongjr

join:2009-11-30
Cheraw, SC
reply to Doc Lithius
for me, wow has been unplayable for about the last two/three months. I used to be able to play (1200-1600ms), but now it's so unsteady I went 1.5 months without buying a timecard. Not sure what happened to change this, when I was constant at 1200-1600 l learned to deal with the lag and the game became enjoyable again, but now I'm constantly subject to random disconnects in raids and dal.. and when they start, they don't stop for hours.

broadwaybluz

join:2010-07-28
Montgomery, LA
Keep in mind that I d/c in Dalaran even on my campus' network where I can get speeds of up to 13 mb/s. So it might not be Hughesnet.

BTW, I rolled a hunter to deal with the lag. If I lag out, sometimes I come back and my pet has cleared all the mobs.

kenlongjr

join:2009-11-30
Cheraw, SC
reply to Doc Lithius
I know dal can be an issue, but when i take my pc elsewhere I don't have problems. and I can even deal with dal a lot more than I can the random dcs in raids and not being able to log back in for hours


dugan

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius
I "upgraded" from the 7000 to the 9000 some time ago. when playing wow on the 7000 i seem to remember lagg running from 700 to 1100 ms. Now w/ the 9000 it runs 1200 to 2000 to unplayable. Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks in advance
Expand your moderator at work


Craig XBL

@direcway.com
reply to Doc Lithius

Re: [Networking] Online Gaming on HughesNet

Add Me: Craig XBL
If two people with bad connections "such as Hughesnet" play together it should work perfectly fine. There would be no delay. So add me and we can all test it out

Max Mouse

join:2010-02-28
reply to Doc Lithius
Halo 1 works awful with Hughesnet. Lags like Hell. But Halo 1 works with Dial up so you can simply just use Dial up.

You will have extreme trouble killing others, picking up items or weapons or anything, getting in a vehicle, Driving a Vehicle And go where you want to go. Because you'll be just randomly moving all over the place...

End after the end of a game where it shows how many your friends killed like all of them have killed 20 times.. While you only have killed 2.
prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · next