DirectPC

Anyone have expirence using DirectPC for online racing (GPL)? Marty

Don't have any personal experience, but until the new MS/Radio Shack/Compaq thing (two-way satellite) is more widespread, satellite is not good for online gaming, since latency is very high. Rick "Marty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Anyone have expirence using > DirectPC for online racing (GPL)? > > Marty >

"Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:91lsa1$4fbsc$[email hidden]... > thing (two-way satellite) is more widespread, satellite is not good for > online gaming, since latency is very high. Don't you mean until the satellites are closer to the ground? That's what accounts for the latency.

"Art McEwen" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:91lsa1$4fbsc$[email hidden]... > > thing (two-way satellite) is more widespread, satellite is not good for > > online gaming, since latency is very high. > > Don't you mean until the satellites are closer to the ground? That's what > accounts for the latency.

Errrr, I don't know anything about DirectPC, but satelites closer to the ground ? Communication satelites are put in geostationary orbit 300.000 km over ground level at the Equator. The reason for this is that the satelites need that height to maintain a position over a fixed point, or rotate at the speed of earth if you like :) Satelites closer to the ground would have to go faster than the geostationary, so they wouldn't work very well as communications satelites. Anyway, a two way satelite connection will give too much latency no matter how high up they are. Ground based radio transmission is a completely other thing, if that is what is discussed. End of todays physics lesson :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

"Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Art McEwen" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > "Rick Baumhauer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:91lsa1$4fbsc$[email hidden]... > > > thing (two-way satellite) is more widespread, satellite is not goodfor > > > online gaming, since latency is very high. > > > > Don't you mean until the satellites are closer to the ground? That'swhat > > accounts for the latency. > > Errrr, I don't know anything about DirectPC, but satelites closer to > the ground ? Communication satelites are put in geostationary orbit > 300.000 km over ground level at the Equator. That was my point. widespread sales isn't going to reduce latency, not if it's in orbit.

It's quite interesting talking with a friend on the phone while we're watching a race - he's on satelite TV and I'm on cable. I see what happens 3-5 seconds before he does. I can imagine how that would mess up on-line gaming... "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Art McEwen" <[email hidden]> writes: > > Anyway, a two way satelite connection will give too much latency no > matter how high up they are.

"David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> writes: > It's quite interesting talking with a friend on the phone while we're > watching a race - he's on satelite TV and I'm on cable. I see what happens > 3-5 seconds before he does. I can imagine how that would mess up on-line > gaming... My father used to work at the oilrigs in the Northern Sea, and when I talked to him on the phone it was rather confusing. But 3-5 seconds is a bit far off, it just feels like it. More like a second. If I remember correctly, the speed of light is 1.000.000 km per second (might be embarrasingly wrong here), so to send a signal to a satelite and back takes a little bit over a half second. But then it has to be distributed on ground level, so add a half second more, and the latency will be around a second. On satelite TV it is a bit different, since the signal has to be compressed and decompressed for digital satelite transmission, and that takes time too. Again, I have no special telecommunication education, so I may be terribly wrong on a few places. But it sure is interesting :)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Art McEwen" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > Anyway, a two way satelite connection will give too much latency no > > matter how high up they are. > > >

-- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

My only point in bringing up the MS service is that it at least gets rid of the "land-line" portion of the connection - it still may not be good for gaming, but it should be an improvement.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:58:00 -0500, "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's quite interesting talking with a friend on the phone while we're >watching a race - he's on satelite TV and I'm on cable. I see what happens >3-5 seconds before he does. I can imagine how that would mess up on-line >gaming... Your cable provider is getting the broadcast from satellite, too. Most likely the same one. Tim

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:42:19 -0500, Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote: >Your cable provider is getting the broadcast from satellite, too. >Most likely the same one. I was typing faster than I was thinking there. Let me clarify. Cable providers get their video via satellite and antenna, and distribute it. If you are watching a race on an "off air" affiliate, like ABC, your cable provider is getting it on an antenna then sending it along to you. I'm not completely familiar with mini-dish systems, but they are sending everything, including normally "off air" programming down via satellite. It used to be when you had a dish, you also had some kind of aerial to get your local programming. Using this logic, I guess RCA, Sony, etc, probably do have satellites beside the normal Galaxy 1-5, etc. to distribute programming. Tim

On 18 Dec 2000 21:51:19 +0100, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote: >Satelites closer to the ground would have to go faster than the >geostationary, so they wouldn't work very well as communications satelites. Hey, tell that to Bill Gates! And Motorola of course, but on the other hand they've already closed down Iridium... >Anyway, a two way satelite connection will give too much latency no >matter how high up they are. The latency for geostationary communication is ~200ms. Not too shabby, but with the transponder latency and modem uplink the combined latency is up to 500-1000ms. :( LEO satellites, like Bill's, are *much* lower. Like ~1% the distance(200-300km). That is, 2-3ms lag(speed-of-light-wise). /Magnus GPLRank hcp: -34.25

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:42:44 +0100, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote: >LEO satellites, like Bill's, are *much* lower. Like ~1% the >distance(200-300km). That is, 2-3ms lag(speed-of-light-wise). Oops, slight correction the teledesic satellites are on a slightly higher orbit... 700km. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/96/proceedings/g1/g1_3.htm http://www.teledesic.com/ /Magnus GPLRank hcp: -34.32

Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:42:44 +0100, Magnus Svensson > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >LEO satellites, like Bill's, are *much* lower. Like ~1% the > >distance(200-300km). That is, 2-3ms lag(speed-of-light-wise). > > Oops, slight correction the teledesic satellites are on a slightly > higher orbit... 700km. > > http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/96/proceedings/g1/g1_3.htm > > http://www.teledesic.com/

Thanks for the clarifications. As I said, I have no proper education in that area other than a civil enginnering degree, and a general interest in everything advanced :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

I had DirectPC, it was the worst piece of shit that I ever owned in my life, terrible for gaming and no service if it messes up, which for me was all the time. I burned that shit in the front yard after my one year was up, quit using it after 4 months. GC

On 18 Dec 2000 22:07:16 +0100, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>My father used to work at the oilrigs in the Northern Sea, and when I >talked to him on the phone it was rather confusing. But 3-5 seconds is >a bit far off, it just feels like it. More like a second. If I >remember correctly, the speed of light is 1.000.000 km per second >(might be embarrasingly wrong here), so to send a signal to a satelite >and back takes a little bit over a half second. But then it has to be >distributed on ground level, so add a half second more, and the >latency will be around a second.

Actually the speed of light is a mere 299.792.458 km/s (had to look it up myself :-), so you should at least triple your values. Three to five seconds seems quite possible. Jan

I have a friend who deals with communication satellites for a living in a pretty high ranking place. I fwd some of this thread to him. Though his comments are addressed to TV applications, much of it applies here, as well. ~daxe ++++++++++++++++++ Speed of light is actually 300,000 Kmps (186,000 Miles per second). Satellites are parked on the Clarke Belt 22,300 miles into outer space. So it's really only a quarter of a second or so round trip to the satellite and back. But that's really one of the only constant quantifiable parts of the journey. Because you have no knowledge of the encode/decode systems, what their settings are, frame syncs along the way, other hops, such as local microwave, satellite truck hops from the race location to the broadcast headend then back up to satellite for the second hop to the end customer, etc, etc that each service is using, the amount of delay encountered via satellite versus cable is not something that is a fixed amount. It differs with each event, each arrangement, and the equipment used, etc. Various encoders have various amounts of processing delay, based on their design, the settings (generally greater compression = greater delay/processing time) etc.. If you were just testing electrons moving through cable, versus electrons moving through space, you could adjust the speed of the electrons through cable for propegation delays through copper, find out how much distance you have with the cable, and get a real good estimate. Real world television system reality doesn't allow for such a simple calculation. So this guy is on the right track. You can start to calculate known latency factors, but unless you really look at each situation and calculate delays involved there is no right answer. Good discussion for over a beer, but nobody wins. The guys who says it's a 3 to 5 second delay *could* be right. In fact sometimes delays are introduced on purpose to allow producers to cut away from a situation that blows up before the viewers get it, similar to the "7 second" radio delay systems to cut callers who swear out of tv and radio broadcasts.

Gary, you really shouldn't sugar-coat things so much. We want to know how you REALLY feel. :) "Gary Creswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ijI%5.342$[email hidden]... > I had DirectPC, it was the worst piece of shit that I ever owned in mylife, > terrible for gaming and no service if it messes up, which for me was allthe > time. I burned that shit in the front yard after my one year was up, quit > using it after 4 months. > GC > >

daxe <[email hidden]> writes: > I have a friend who deals with communication satellites for a living > in a pretty high ranking place. I fwd some of this thread to him. > Though his comments are addressed to TV applications, much of it > applies here, as well. Thanks. So a lot of things I said was wrong then :(, but I only pulled some numbers out of the back of my mind I thought was right. And as I said, I have miss that part of my education, although much of it is covered in general physics courses I've done at the University, which is starting to get some time ago.

Quoted text (53 lines)

> ~daxe > ++++++++++++++++++ > Speed of light is actually 300,000 Kmps (186,000 Miles per second). > Satellites are parked on the Clarke Belt 22,300 miles into outer > space. So > it's really only a quarter of a second or so round trip to the > satellite and > back. But that's really one of the only constant quantifiable parts > of the > journey. Because you have no knowledge of the encode/decode systems, > what > their settings are, frame syncs along the way, other hops, such as > local > microwave, satellite truck hops from the race location to the > broadcast > headend then back up to satellite for the second hop to the end > customer, > etc, etc that each service is using, the amount of delay encountered > via > satellite versus cable is not something that is a fixed amount. It > differs > with each event, each arrangement, and the equipment used, etc. > Various > encoders have various amounts of processing delay, based on their > design, > the settings (generally greater compression = greater delay/processing > time) > etc.. > > If you were just testing electrons moving through cable, versus > electrons > moving through space, you could adjust the speed of the electrons > through > cable for propegation delays through copper, find out how much > distance you > have with the cable, and get a real good estimate. Real world > television > system reality doesn't allow for such a simple calculation. So this > guy is > on the right track. You can start to calculate known latency factors, > but > unless you really look at each situation and calculate delays involved > there > is no right answer. Good discussion for over a beer, but nobody wins. > The > guys who says it's a 3 to 5 second delay *could* be right. In fact > sometimes delays are introduced on purpose to allow producers to cut > away > from a situation that blows up before the viewers get it, similar to > the "7 > second" radio delay systems to cut callers who swear out of tv and > radio > broadcasts.

-- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

So den Py Yiminy why'd you have to REPOST it all? Olav K. Malmin gespracht: > So a lot of things I said was wrong then...

Bart Brown <[email hidden]> writes: > So den Py Yiminy why'd you have to REPOST it all? > Dammit, sorry about that, I usually keep myself from doing that. But I do never answer to a post on the top :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

Actually, I haven't heard much lately, but there already is such a satellite system . Its called Iridium and was developed for cellular phone communication. The venture has fallen on hard financial times and Motorola shut it down in the last year or so. These low earth orbiting systems basically consist of a ring of high speed low altitude satellites. Low orbit is a relative term of course, but I believe in this context it refers to altitudes on the order of a few hundred miles. I remember that Bill Gates among others were financing an Internet capable system but don't know how thats coming along. Also I know that Rockwell International was working on a similar system for a while. All of these are aimed at reducing communication lag due to long distances between the ground and the satellite. Jim "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Errrr, I don't know anything about DirectPC, but satelites closer to > the ground ? Communication satelites are put in geostationary orbit > 300.000 km over ground level at the Equator. The reason for this is thatthe > satelites need that height to maintain a position over a fixed point, > or rotate at the speed of earth if you like :) > > Satelites closer to the ground would have to go faster than the > geostationary, so they wouldn't work very well as communicationssatelites.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Anyway, a two way satelite connection will give too much latency no > matter how high up they are. > > Ground based radio transmission is a completely other thing, if that > is what is discussed. > > End of todays physics lesson :) > > -- > Olav K. Malmin > remove .spam when replying

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" wrote... > > > Errrr, I don't know anything about DirectPC, but satelites closer to > > the ground ? Communication satelites are put in geostationary orbit > > 300.000 km over ground level at the Equator. The reason for this is that > the > > satelites need that height to maintain a position over a fixed point, > > or rotate at the speed of earth if you like :)

That's why I like this group. Here I am...60 years old...and I just learned something new. I told my oldest granddaughter just the other day..."I learn something new every day." As long as I surround myself with people who know more than me...that will remain. Thanks Olav! -- Jim "Pops" Tester [email hidden] #60 M&M's Dodge Intrepid Intrepid Motorsports Racing Team http://www.citlink.net/~bushman1/stall.html

"Jim Tester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5R606.355 > That's why I like this group. Here I am...60 years old...and I justlearned > something new. Yeah but how much of it's true ;)

"Art McEwen" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Jim Tester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5R606.355 > > > That's why I like this group. Here I am...60 years old...and I just > learned > > something new. > > Yeah but how much of it's true ;)

Yeah, I made a real bummer here. I pretty much got all of my numbers wrong, and also some of the priciples. :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove .spam when replying

On 21 Dec 2000 10:02:07 +0100, [email hidden] (Olav K. Malmin) wrote: >Yeah, I made a real bummer here. I pretty much got all of my numbers >wrong, and also some of the priciples. :) Don't get bummed out Olav, I didn't paste in an expert's opinion to make you look bad. I figured it's always better for everyone to have accurate info on which to base their discussions. ~daxe