EPTLatencyChanger 0.2 - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Num
South Africa62 Posts
| ||
|
Regentropfen
Germany277 Posts
On February 01 2008 04:17 tec27 wrote: As an option to make it easier for players to control, couldn't you just modify the values SC uses for low-latency, high, and extra high (on the options screen). That way, if everyone has the launcher, it would default to one value, but they could easily change it up mid-game if they encountered lag. It only changes the base latency, you can still select between low, high and extrahigh. But for Latency=2 that is not the low/high/extra of battle.net but that of LAN. FYI | ||
|
OzzZz
14 Posts
 | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10342 Posts
On February 01 2008 04:19 Num wrote: I am confused. How exactly does a program reduce latency? From my understanding latency is based on line-speed and distance from the other party. Now one of those you cannot change so how does a program reduce latency? BW has a "built in" latency buffer, presumably for synchronization purposes since the game runs synchronous. When Starcraft came out, high latency dialup was quite prevalent, so this additional latency was needed to stop the game freezing while waiting for sync in the assumption that a constant speed is preferable to a game that slows down or freezes periodically for synchronization. These days, people are on higher bandwidth, lower latency connections, so the additional latency added to the game is not required as much. How effective this program will be depends on the connections of the people in game, obviously setting a latency for LAN when there are people with high ping in the game will just result in constant freezing while BW waits for sync, but for people playing exclusively on low latency connections, it should work pretty well. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On February 01 2008 03:23 Equinox_kr wrote: I'm a little confused about the #LL concept. Wouldn't everybody want #LL1 so the latency is that of single player mode (and thus maybe slightly better than LAN? I'm not sure if there's actually any difference in latency between them: LAN might have a TINY bit of more latency problem)? I don't understand why anybody would want #LL5 (rofl makes no difference ) either.LAN is 200 ms latency while SP is below 100. Sometimes you can tell the difference, but that doesn't really matter since "true" StarCraft is LAN latency anyway. Basically, muta micro is very easy in SP and you can perform neat stuff like move&hit with zealots etc. I'm tempted to know if Korean leagues decide to switch if they can implement SP latency on LAN. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
Sorry if this is ignorant, but I was of that thought. | ||
|
Folca
2235 Posts
wow, | ||
|
LumberJack
United States3355 Posts
On February 01 2008 05:46 BluzMan wrote: LAN is 200 ms latency while SP is below 100. Sometimes you can tell the difference, but that doesn't really matter since "true" StarCraft is LAN latency anyway. Basically, muta micro is very easy in SP and you can perform neat stuff like move&hit with zealots etc. I'm tempted to know if Korean leagues decide to switch if they can implement SP latency on LAN. that would be fucking SICK, it would completely change the game edit: positively of course | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5532 Posts
And even bnet, I usually ping well below 100ms and so do my friends. So would SP latency work in this case? | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21550 Posts
On September 12 2007 05:48 SonuvBob wrote: Game latency FPVOD test results: Single Player: 83-100ms (5-6 frames) Multiplayer (UDP): 217-233ms (13-14 frames) B.net (Low Latency): 450-650ms (27-39 frames) B.net (High Latency): 667-833ms (40-50 frames) B.net (Extra Latency): 867-1050ms (52-63 frames) All testing done with just one person and one computer in melee mode, recording with Camtasia at 60fps. I tried two different tests: 1. SCV movement: The time between first frame in which the right-click circle is visible and the first frame in which the SCV rotates or moves in response. 2. SCV creation: Using the bottom right buttons, which show up as white when the mouse button is pressed, and yellow again when the mouse button is released (the command is not issued until the mouse is released). Used the time between the first frame after mouse-up and the first frame in which the unit appears in the queue. So the LAN/L2 setting will cut B.net latency by more than half, and the SP/L1 setting will cut LAN/L2 latency by more than half. | ||
|
Agahnim
Netherlands132 Posts
| ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
On February 01 2008 06:37 Folca wrote: wait, are you talking about, that people that have too much latency to make games, can finally make games? wow, That has nothing to do with latency, that is caused by a blocked port 6112 and not addressed with this plugin. The current version does not work on LAN, but the older version on http://www.bwprogrammers.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1228 does. + Show Spoiler [Source] + program LatencyChanger; {$APPTYPE CONSOLE} uses windows, util, sysutils, classes; var hProcess:THandle; ProcessID:Cardinal; Wnd:hWnd; Written:Cardinal; Data:String; Delay:byte; const Address=$004D925B; begin if paramcount>0 then Delay:=strtoint(paramstr(1)) else Delay:=2; Data:=#$B8+chr(Delay)+#0#0#0#$90#$90; EnablePrivilege('SeDebugPrivilege'); Wnd:=FindWindow(nil,'Brood War'); if Wnd=0 then raise exception.create('Window not found'); GetWindowThreadProcessId(Wnd, @ProcessId); hProcess:=OpenProcess(PROCESS_ALL_ACCESS,true,ProcessID); if hProcess=0 then raise exception.create('Could not open process'); WriteProcessMemory(hProcess,Pointer(Address),@Data[1],length(Data),Written); end. | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
| ||
|
CapO
United States1615 Posts
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! =/ | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
On February 01 2008 09:28 CapO wrote: this is what scares me the most: Changes Starcraftcode in memory, which is detectable by Antihacktools like Warden, so there is a risk, that blizzard decides to invalidate the users Accounts/CD-Keys. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! =/ Well we've had that with many programs, like Penguin Plug too. I think it's worth the risk. I tried it but my connection is too crap for it to not be choppy at L3. [Edit] It works with some people well at L2 :D This is awesome. | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5532 Posts
On February 01 2008 07:16 MasterOfChaos wrote: That has nothing to do with latency, that is caused by a blocked port 6112 and not addressed with this plugin. Hey speaking of which, would it be possible to make a simple program that changes the port sc uses? I don't need it but it would be hella usefull when im playing with people who dont know how to port forward (which seems to be everyone on b.net with a rounter :\) | ||
|
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
On February 01 2008 09:52 jimminy_kriket wrote: Hey speaking of which, would it be possible to make a simple program that changes the port sc uses? I don't need it but it would be hella usefull when im playing with people who dont know how to port forward (which seems to be everyone on b.net with a rounter :\) The game data port method is pretty easy to carry out for that, but ya a program would be useful I guess. | ||
|
tec27
United States3702 Posts
On February 01 2008 09:28 CapO wrote: this is what scares me the most: Changes Starcraftcode in memory, which is detectable by Antihacktools like Warden, so there is a risk, that blizzard decides to invalidate the users Accounts/CD-Keys. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! =/ The risk is pretty low. Warden only checks certain offsets that are typically overwritten by hacks, and the offsets used by this program don't fall under that. He's just making sure he's covered in case Blizzard completely modifies Warden one day. Even when Warden catches hackers now, all it does is give them a loss. | ||
|
CapO
United States1615 Posts
On February 01 2008 10:00 tec27 wrote: The risk is pretty low. Warden only checks certain offsets that are typically overwritten by hacks, and the offsets used by this program don't fall under that. He's just making sure he's covered in case Blizzard completely modifies Warden one day. Even when Warden catches hackers now, all it does is give them a loss. definately makes me feel better =] | ||
| ||
