 |
02/18/09, 4:26 PM
|
#151
|
|
Piston Honda
Orc Warlock
Jaedenar (EU)
|
Yes, but you`re talking about 6.7 gb. Let`s round it up to 7, 8 gb of ram isn`t going to be enough and I was going to say 16 gb will be a lot more expensive but after checking out newegg I see G.SKILL 4GB 240-Pin DDR2 at ~100$ which is not that much afterall.
8gb (4x2gb) ~100$, 12gb ~250$(2x4+2x2), 16gb ~400$.
I`m assuming here that most of us are still on DDR2 with a 4 dimm motherboard and support up to 16gb of ram.
Last edited by Gogusrl : 02/18/09 at 4:40 PM.
Reason: changed the prices a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
02/18/09, 11:26 PM
|
#152
|
|
Von Kaiser
|
Originally Posted by Repeek
Anyone use Lowping.com? I'm curious if I'll see an improvement (I'm east coast on a west coast server averaging 200ms ping).
|
I think you mean lowerping.com - and I'm still unsure how that should work.
A Basic Explination of what the Program's do:
Sockscap/Proxycap/freecap Sends your data to Putty.
Putty then sends the Data to our servers from there it goes to the gaming servers.
|
Either I can blame it on 5am in the morning and being slightly insomniac or I really can't figure out how
user < - > local socks proxy < - ssh / isp - > lowerping.com < - > blizzard server
should be faster than
user < - isp - > blizzard server
The only reasonable? explanation that comes to my mind is that their servers are chosen with good routing to blizzard servers. But that's only half of the deal, you still need to get there with your default connection. And SSH slows the connection down instead of speeding it up. (OK, there's compression, but we're talking about pings and it's not like WoW will use 100% of your bandwidth...)
|
Live fast. Die young. Spirit rez. Take revenge.
|
|
|
02/19/09, 12:33 AM
|
#153
|
|
Piston Honda
|
Lowerping seems to be targeted at an Oceanic audience that wants lower-latency connections to Blizzard data centers located in the US. If the trans-Pacific link used by a particular Oceanic ISP is congested or has other chronic issues, and lowerping has access to a link that doesn't suffer from those issues, then a WoW player could feasibly see an improvement by using their service. In effect, the user would basically be changing to a different ISP for the purpose of a single game.
The propagation speed of an electrical or optical signal along any cable is fundamentally limited by the speed of light, so any user in Australia is going to get a few hundred milliseconds of lag to a computer in the United States regardless of any tweaks or improvements. That's just basic physics. The propaganda on their web site talks about 600+ ms ping times reduced to 300-ish milliseconds, which seems generally feasible if you trade a bad connection for a decent one.
|
|
|
|
|
02/19/09, 1:34 AM
|
#154
|
|
Von Kaiser
|
Originally Posted by LucidityAxel
Lowerping seems to be targeted at an Oceanic audience that wants lower-latency connections to Blizzard data centers located in the US. If the trans-Pacific link used by a particular Oceanic ISP is congested or has other chronic issues, and lowerping has access to a link that doesn't suffer from those issues, then a WoW player could feasibly see an improvement by using their service. In effect, the user would basically be changing to a different ISP for the purpose of a single game.
The propagation speed of an electrical or optical signal along any cable is fundamentally limited by the speed of light, so any user in Australia is going to get a few hundred milliseconds of lag to a computer in the United States regardless of any tweaks or improvements. That's just basic physics. The propaganda on their web site talks about 600+ ms ping times reduced to 300-ish milliseconds, which seems generally feasible if you trade a bad connection for a decent one.
|
This was covered in a thread quite a while ago - see http://elitistjerks.com/728397-post271.html. I think there was some discussion in that thread about people in the US reducing their latency slightly using it (dropping 50ms maybe?).
|
|
|
|
|
02/19/09, 2:57 AM
|
#155
|
|
Don Flamenco
Draenei Shaman
Tichondrius
|
Originally Posted by LucidityAxel
The propagation speed of an electrical or optical signal along any cable is fundamentally limited by the speed of light, so any user in Australia is going to get a few hundred milliseconds of lag to a computer in the United States regardless of any tweaks or improvements. That's just basic physics. The propaganda on their web site talks about 600+ ms ping times reduced to 300-ish milliseconds, which seems generally feasible if you trade a bad connection for a decent one.
|
A little nitpicky, but the limits of the relevant telecommunications tech are not primarily caused by the speed of light. Light travels 90 000 km in 300 milliseconds, which is obviously a lot further than the distance from Irvine, CA to Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
02/19/09, 4:51 AM
|
#156
|
|
Witch doctors park in gear
Cadfael
Worgen Priest
No WoW Account (EU)
|
Originally Posted by mek
A little nitpicky, but the limits of the relevant telecommunications tech are not primarily caused by the speed of light. Light travels 90 000 km in 300 milliseconds, which is obviously a lot further than the distance from Irvine, CA to Australia.
|
Nitpicking your nitpick: That's the speed of light in vaacum. Light traveling in a fiber optic cable is not in a vacuum and is way slower.
In fact, it's a little known thing but an electrical pulse traveling in a copper wire is propagating faster than light in fiber optic cable, due to the fact that the electrical impulse travels at something like 0.96*c but light is slower than 1*c in the fiber (I think somewhere between 3/4 and 1/2 of c). For all relevant things it is still extremely fast but the 300'000km/sec speed of light really only applies in a vacuum. As soon as light is within another medium, it is slower.
|
"Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through with the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act as if there were some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged."
- Discworld: Hogfather
|
|
|
02/19/09, 8:09 AM
|
#157
|
|
Piston Honda
Tauren Druid
Stormscale (EU)
|
For people concerned about their latency, be careful about using tracert / traceroute as a ping utility, because it really isn't. Windows (from NT at least) have a built in command specifically for this, called pathping. This combines the tracert and ping commands to give a much better view of your actual latency through your network.
Use the command "netstat -n -p tcp -b | more" to find the ip you are connecting to. Somewhere within Blizzards network you will not be able to get ICMP echo requests, since they understandably don't support this on the actual servers. But if your routing and ping is fine up til that point, it's fairly reasonable to assume it's not a routing issue.
|
|
|
|
02/19/09, 9:41 AM
|
#158
|
|
Glass Joe
|
Originally Posted by Gogusrl
Yes, but you`re talking about 6.7 gb. Let`s round it up to 7, 8 gb of ram isn`t going to be enough and I was going to say 16 gb will be a lot more expensive but after checking out newegg I see G.SKILL 4GB 240-Pin DDR2 at ~100$ which is not that much afterall.
8gb (4x2gb) ~100$, 12gb ~250$(2x4+2x2), 16gb ~400$.
I`m assuming here that most of us are still on DDR2 with a 4 dimm motherboard and support up to 16gb of ram.
|
Correct, and newegg is where i shop as well. I have only 4gb now but looking to go to 12gb with a 8gb ramdrive; with the actual memory you linked. I really have high hopes for this making a big difference in game play once i get the .mpq files in there.
|
|
|
|
|
02/21/09, 6:01 AM
|
#159
|
|
Von Kaiser
Orc Shaman
Sunstrider (EU)
|
Originally Posted by swills
I also had this exact same issue. My PC would just randomly hardlock, sometimes two or three times a day and only while playing WoW. In my system I have two SLI'd GeForce 9800s, with one of them outputting to two monitors. WoW can be on either screen depending on what else I am doing. In the last few days I started refer-a-friend levelling, and as soon as I had a copy of WoW on each monitor, the PC would hardlock within 60 seconds of opening the second copy every time.
Recently I tried turning off SLI entirely, and running one monitor from each 9800 instead. Since then, I have had no lock-ups at all, but admittedly it has only been two days so far.
The quote in post #110 in this thread:
sounded exactly like the problem I was experiencing. It sounds to me like there's something WoW does that makes these cards lockup like this.
|
I don't have SLI, but I do have the ATI equivalent - crossfire. I disabled crossfire about a week ago after reading this post and my PC hasn't hardlocked since.
|
|
|
|
|
02/21/09, 7:52 AM
|
#160
|
|
Don Flamenco
|
Originally Posted by ninor
For people concerned about their latency, be careful about using tracert / traceroute as a ping utility, because it really isn't. Windows (from NT at least) have a built in command specifically for this, called pathping. This combines the tracert and ping commands to give a much better view of your actual latency through your network.
Use the command "netstat -n -p tcp -b | more" to find the ip you are connecting to. Somewhere within Blizzards network you will not be able to get ICMP echo requests, since they understandably don't support this on the actual servers. But if your routing and ping is fine up til that point, it's fairly reasonable to assume it's not a routing issue.
|
pathping seems to need to be run from an elevated command prompt on Vista, even though it doesn't actually tell you that. Running it in a non-privileged prompt just gives a "No resources" error.
|
|
|
|
|
02/22/09, 1:02 AM
|
#161
|
|
Bald Bull
Tauren Warrior
Kil'Jaeden
|
Originally Posted by Cadfael
Nitpicking your nitpick: That's the speed of light in vaacum. Light traveling in a fiber optic cable is not in a vacuum and is way slower.
In fact, it's a little known thing but an electrical pulse traveling in a copper wire is propagating faster than light in fiber optic cable, due to the fact that the electrical impulse travels at something like 0.96*c but light is slower than 1*c in the fiber (I think somewhere between 3/4 and 1/2 of c). For all relevant things it is still extremely fast but the 300'000km/sec speed of light really only applies in a vacuum. As soon as light is within another medium, it is slower.
|
Nitpicking your nitpicking of a nitpick:
All of what you said is largely true about net speeds, but specifically light never slows down. It appears to slow down when it interacts with mass because it is absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms of the material. But between atoms its still traveling the full speed. So the potential is still highest with raw light.
|
|
|
|
|
02/22/09, 4:41 AM
|
#163
|
|
Glass Joe
Tauren Shaman
Baelgun (EU)
|
Originally Posted by winkiller
Either I can blame it on 5am in the morning and being slightly insomniac or I really can't figure out how
user < - > local socks proxy < - ssh / isp - > lowerping.com < - > blizzard server
should be faster than
user < - isp - > blizzard server
The only reasonable? explanation that comes to my mind is that their servers are chosen with good routing to blizzard servers. But that's only half of the deal, you still need to get there with your default connection. And SSH slows the connection down instead of speeding it up. (OK, there's compression, but we're talking about pings and it's not like WoW will use 100% of your bandwidth...)
|
You are not alone - I don't see how this could be achieved, either, unless your link to Blizzard's data center is really terrible. Tunneling anything through an SSH connection will hurt roundtrip times badly. If they were offering an unencrypted PPTP connection, or a GRE IP tunnel, things would be different. But with SSH, I think you will only see an improvement if your connection is terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
02/22/09, 9:50 AM
|
#164
|
|
Glass Joe
Undead Warlock
The Maelstrom (EU)
|
So how far can you screw down your graphical settings before you risk not being able to see that void zone or that rain of fire over your head? I've been having excessive lag recently and tweaked my graphical settings a little to aleviate this issue somewhat, but I don't want to risk not being able to see that void zone anymore! 
|
|
|
|
|
02/22/09, 12:53 PM
|
#165
|
|
Piston Honda
|
Originally Posted by Krypto1
So how far can you screw down your graphical settings before you risk not being able to see that void zone or that rain of fire over your head? I've been having excessive lag recently and tweaked my graphical settings a little to aleviate this issue somewhat, but I don't want to risk not being able to see that void zone anymore! 
|
Almost all Void Zone type things in the game are visible at the lowest Spell Detail. In fact it helps to pick them out from the DK/Paladin crap that is all over the ground. It can make things like the Blizzard on Sapph a bit harder to pick up though.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
| Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
| FPS Tweaks |
Redbeard |
User Interface and AddOns |
2 |
10/02/07 11:06 PM |
|