 AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Interleave
I have had equally good experiences with Qwest and Comcast. They are very similar with the exceptions of upload speeds and latency. My saying so isn't anything more than stating facts.
Your stating that interleave is required for any stable internet connection is absurd. I'm only commenting on it so that a novice will know the what you are saying ridiculous and not draw the wrong conclusions about how DSL (or cable) works.
I want these forums to continue to be a source for useful information, so will continue to comment to that end.
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
|
AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Interleave said by adamofwales:Interleave is a necessary evil. Once you resolve to that fact you will switch back to Qwest, and you'll apologize for ever leaving. That sounds like some kind of vaguely disturbing threat... 
Anyway, here is some info for people to read on how interleave works and why Qwest uses it:
»US West/Qwest DSL »What is interleaving and why does Qwest use it?
»More On FEC and Interleave
I invite any (preferably non-frothy-mouthed) discussion.
For example there were some rumors floating around a while ago that Qwest was going to offer "gammer" level of service that would have a lower level of interleave induced latency. Has anyone heard any more on that?
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
|
| reply to Anon
And for anyone who wants to know the real deal on interleave.
I have Qwest 1.5 DSL, on a Cisco 678.
I also have an Xbox with Xbox Live.
I play NCAA Football 2005, and I rountinely absolutely smoke the opposition with no lag above normal gameplay that happens on any high speed connection.
In fact, the only time I have lag in a game is when I am playing someone on cable who has all the dropped packets, in which case, the game slows way down.
Most of your lag issues deal with improperly configured modems and routers, where people don't know what they are doing. |
|
| reply to AthlGrond
said by AthlGrond:That sounds like some kind of vaguely disturbing threat... No, it's the truth, that you can't handle, and you're giving everyone inaccurate information because you think you know what you are talking about. |
|
AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by adamofwales:said by AthlGrond:That sounds like some kind of vaguely disturbing threat... No, it's the truth, that you can't handle, and you're giving everyone inaccurate information because you think you know what you are talking about. The information I posted is from this site, so you think everyone else on this site are wrong if they disagree with you?
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
|
| The reality is, you are completely wrong, and no longer worth responding to.
Interleave doesn't affect gaming performance. I have it, I use it everyday, and I know exactly what kind of gaming performance I get. It's awesome, it works perfect, I never experience any lag, and I never get the BS that I got with cable. |
|
AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| So you do think that anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong. (Read the posts above yours, by other people who need better latency than what Qwest provides.)
I'm not surprised that you don't have any problems with you Xbox sports games. Some games are very tolerant to latency.
But the fact is some games do require excellent latency (not just pretty good), games like rainbow six, quake, counter-strike, and Battle Field 1942. They can be played with less than excellent latency however it puts the player at a distinct disadvantage.
Aside:
Your extrapolations are really quite humorous:
I have no problems, therefore, no one has problems.
My friend had problems with Comcast once, therefore, everyone has problems with Comcast all the time.
(I could go on and on, but time only permits so much.)
I particularly enjoy how when you are faced with evidence to the contrary you make even more ridiculous comments and extrapolations to back up the last outlandish comment. (Sort of a self generating cycle of absurdity.)
Please! Don't! Stop! 
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
|
| said by AthlGrond:So you do think that anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong. (Read the posts above yours, by other people who need better latency than what Qwest provides.) I'm not surprised that you don't have any problems with you Xbox sports games. Some games are very tolerant to latency. But the fact is some games do require excellent latency (not just pretty good), games like rainbow six, quake, counter-strike, and Battle Field 1942. They can be played with less than excellent latency however it puts the player at a distinct disadvantage. Aside: Your extrapolations are really quite humorous: I have no problems, therefore, no one has problems. My friend had problems with Comcast once, therefore, everyone has problems with Comcast all the time. (I could go on and on, but time only permits so much.) I particularly enjoy how when you are faced with evidence to the contrary you make even more ridiculous comments and extrapolations to back up the last outlandish comment. (Sort of a self generating cycle of absurdity.) Please! Don't! Stop! You simply don't know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by adamofwales:You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually the problem is that I do know what I'm talking about.
How many people have to tell you that you are wrong before it starts to sink in?
--
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
|
|
P.S. If you think that you don't have interleave or latency in your gaming, or any other online computing for that matter, you are smoking crack.
|
|
| reply to AthlGrond
said by AthlGrond:How many people have to tell you that you are wrong before it starts to sink in? Very simple answer. I'm not wrong. You are. |
|
 PixelFreakInnocent Until Proven Guilty
join:2001-02-21
Bremerton, WA | reply to adamofwales
said by adamofwales:P.S. If you think that you don't have interleave or latency in your gaming, or any other online computing for that matter, you are smoking crack. What's telling about his confusion is that he is using the terms "latency" and "interleave" interchangeably. This is not the case - they are two very distinct things. But let's not tell him what the difference is, let's see if he can explain to US what the difference is...that forces him to explain himself, not simply criticise other's assertions.
So, how about the explanation between "interleave" and "latency"? We are waiting...
PixelFreak |
|
1 edit | said by PixelFreak:said by adamofwales:P.S. If you think that you don't have interleave or latency in your gaming, or any other online computing for that matter, you are smoking crack. What's telling about his confusion is that he is using the terms "latency" and "interleave" interchangeably. This is not the case - they are two very distinct things. But let's not tell him what the difference is, let's see if he can explain to US what the difference is...that forces him to explain himself, not simply criticise other's assertions. So, how about the explanation between "interleave" and "latency"? We are waiting... PixelFreak No response is warranted. What I can tell you however, is that you obviously don't have your facts straight, which is very telling indeed. |
|
PixelFreakInnocent Until Proven Guilty
join:2001-02-21
Bremerton, WA | Wow, avoiding the question actually answered it for us all.
You CAN'T explain the difference, rendering your position as unfounded. Try to explain that away...
No explanation = no understanding.
PixelFreak |
|
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA | reply to adamofwales
I had Qwest in two locations prior to Comcast arriving in Spokane. Qwest was a bad experience BOTH times - no need to get into details. Won't ever do DSL again. Comcast has been ROCK SOLID for the two years I've been on. |
|
 63353372Premium
join:2003-06-18
Canada
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to adamofwales
Nvm... |
|
 JDC69Premium
join:2003-03-21
Oakridge, OR | reply to adamofwales
Adam,
Did you ever take a moment to consider that the net code of your football game may not be as latency sensitive as the majority of FPS games on the market? Do you know who has host of each game played? I don't know how your particular game is set up as far as who is host and who is client during online play but if you are the one setting the game up then you are most likely host and in that situation you wouldn't have any problems due to latency. However the poor guy joining your game probably would.
I would suggest that you do some research to back up your argument here instead of posting flaming comments on issues that you obviously have no clue about. Here is a little experiment for you to try. Go out and buy Halo 2 for the xbox, then hop into some matchmade games and play a while. Give it a day or two then come back in here and brag about how latency "never" affects you. When you come back to brag post your experience levels or give us your gamer tag so we can review your stats at the bungie site. |
|
ssego
join:2002-01-06
Villisca, IA
1 edit | I play Soldier of Fortune 2 on the PC. My ping is usually 50ms-65ms from Boone, Iowa to Dallas, Texas. I usually have a positive ratio.. I'm not really that good, but I'm not going to blame my lack of skills on latency.
Here's my stats page (updated first of every month)
»server.teamjudge.us/sof2stats/pl···YES.html
Here's the TRACERT results:
Tracing route to server.teamjudge.us [63.209.37.205]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 31 ms 31 ms 32 ms desm-dsl-gw01-193.desm.qwest.net [216.161.116.193]
2 31 ms 32 ms 31 ms 216.161.116.125
3 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms dsm-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.159.33]
4 40 ms 39 ms 38 ms kcm-core-03.inet.qwest.net [205.171.205.198]
5 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms dal-core-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.8.141]
6 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms dap-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.225.53]
7 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms so-1-2-0.edge1.Dallas1.Level3.net [209.245.240.165]
8 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms so-1-2-0.bbr1.Dallas1.Level3.net [209.244.15.161]
9 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms 4.68.122.11
10 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms unknown.Level3.net [63.209.37.205]
Trace complete. |
|
