Re: A Plea to hosts regards Latency Capping & Passwording.

Absolutely agree 100%. "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Hi, > Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more > dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and > passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & > sensible drivers out of their servers.. > > Latency capping is a real joke....!! > > This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. > Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap > limit.. > Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, > then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the > other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly > raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the > quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. > Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it > was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the > globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular > bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial > displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when > i connect at 26400. > If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, > but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican > jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? > It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and > do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing > are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the > same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the > expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line > performance.. > Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly > needed in this area.. > Latency capping is not the answer..!! > > Passwording...... > Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also > having an impact on our GPL community.. > If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is > your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated > hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... > I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean > drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and > old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by > passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league > practice sessions ? > Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and > the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group > of hosts to select races from.. > > These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) > and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our > VROC/GPL community... > > Cheers, > Ron Ayton > Australia

Just curious. Your 56K modem... is it a winmodem? That could certainly explain your "quality issues" in comparison to a Hardware Modem at 33.6. Cheers, Schumi "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Hi, > Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more > dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and > passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & > sensible drivers out of their servers.. > > Latency capping is a real joke....!! > > This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. > Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap > limit.. > Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, > then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the > other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly > raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the > quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. > Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it > was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the > globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular > bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial > displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when > i connect at 26400. > If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, > but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican > jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? > It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and > do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing > are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the > same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the > expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line > performance.. > Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly > needed in this area.. > Latency capping is not the answer..!! > > Passwording...... > Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also > having an impact on our GPL community.. > If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is > your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated > hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... > I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean > drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and > old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by > passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league > practice sessions ? > Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and > the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group > of hosts to select races from.. > > These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) > and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our > VROC/GPL community... > > Cheers, > Ron Ayton > Australia

He's right, you know. "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Hi, > Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more > dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and > passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & > sensible drivers out of their servers.. > > Latency capping is a real joke....!! > > This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. > Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap > limit.. > Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, > then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the > other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly > raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the > quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. > Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it > was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the > globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular > bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial > displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when > i connect at 26400. > If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, > but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican > jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? > It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and > do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing > are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the > same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the > expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line > performance.. > Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly > needed in this area.. > Latency capping is not the answer..!! > > Passwording...... > Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also > having an impact on our GPL community.. > If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is > your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated > hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... > I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean > drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and > old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by > passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league > practice sessions ? > Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and > the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group > of hosts to select races from.. > > These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) > and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our > VROC/GPL community... > > Cheers, > Ron Ayton > Australia

On Mon 09 Oct 2000 07:28:09a, Ron Ayton wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Hi Jason, >No, i am using a USR Robotics 56k external.. >Connecting at speeds of over 26400, i notice a gradual linear loss in >quality up to the full speed of 56k. >At 24000 to 28800 my quality on-line in GPL is usually 1.000 with >little if any variance, which makes for excellent on-line play with >latencys of up to almost .700ms being perfectly playable with no >warping at all, but at 31000 and above, there is a gradual decrease in >quality in GPL online, which results in much more warping and poor >on-line play in GPL in general.

<snip> That's quite interesting. I also have a US Robotics 56k modem, though it's an internal one (yes, hardware of course), and at anything up to 33600 I get 1.000 quality and pings around 550, whereas at full speed (usually around 42k) I tend to get quality of .980 and pings of 250-350, though some servers - notably B.Joystick and UKGPL - are considerably better. With those two I can easily get quality of 0.990+ and pings of around 180, which makes for a very nice experience. Anything better will have to wait until BT gets around to installing ADSL outside big cities (about 2030 at last prediction...). I do agree with your original remarks, though - what is the point in password-protecting a race and therefore getting no clients at all? The only sensible reason for doing this is to test a server - there can't be *that* many tests, surely? -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.33) The GPL Scrapyard - http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Hi Jason, No, i am using a USR Robotics 56k external.. Connecting at speeds of over 26400, i notice a gradual linear loss in quality up to the full speed of 56k. At 24000 to 28800 my quality on-line in GPL is usually 1.000 with little if any variance, which makes for excellent on-line play with latencys of up to almost .700ms being perfectly playable with no warping at all, but at 31000 and above, there is a gradual decrease in quality in GPL online, which results in much more warping and poor on-line play in GPL in general. I would much rather have higher latencys with perfect quality, than low latencys with poorer quality, hence my post to try and get some sanity back into many of the VROC host's latency cap limits.. Cheers, Ron Jason "Schumi" Murray <[email hidden]> wrote in article <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Just curious. > > Your 56K modem... is it a winmodem? > That could certainly explain your "quality issues" in comparison to a > Hardware Modem at 33.6. > > Cheers, > > Schumi > >

Go Ron! "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton...

Quoted text (57 lines)

| Hi, | Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more | dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and | passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & | sensible drivers out of their servers.. | | Latency capping is a real joke....!! | | This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. | Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap | limit.. | Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, | then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the | other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly | raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the | quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. | Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it | was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the | globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular | bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial | displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when | i connect at 26400. | If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, | but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican | jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? | It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and | do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing | are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the | same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the | expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line | performance.. | Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly | needed in this area.. | Latency capping is not the answer..!! | | Passwording...... | Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also | having an impact on our GPL community.. | If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is | your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated | hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... | I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean | drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and | old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by | passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league | practice sessions ? | Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and | the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group | of hosts to select races from.. | | These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) | and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our | VROC/GPL community... | | Cheers, | Ron Ayton | Australia

Agreed Ron. Those of us who have been around long enough know all about the latency Vs quality issue. Maybe it might be an idea to repost that thing you did about setting up DUN's periodically as a FAQ in here. As far as the password thing goes, I have personally made it policy to keep informal practice sessions for the GPVL as non passworded and only "close the doors" at actual point scoring races. It's a great way to see good newcomers in action with a view to possible recruitment. Curteous and well behaved drivers will be given an invitation to join, many of whom, I might not have noticed in action elsewhere. I too am getting tired of logging on these days, only to see a hoard of red races and have to spend an eternity looking at the small talk in the chatrooms. Hosts might be reminded that there is always the kick function available if someone decides to start playing up. MS "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> Hi, > Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more > dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and > passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & > sensible drivers out of their servers.. > > Latency capping is a real joke....!! > > This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. > Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap > limit.. > Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, > then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the > other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly > raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the > quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. > Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it > was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the > globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular > bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial > displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when > i connect at 26400. > If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, > but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican > jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? > It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and > do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing > are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the > same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the > expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line > performance.. > Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly > needed in this area.. > Latency capping is not the answer..!! > > Passwording...... > Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also > having an impact on our GPL community.. > If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is > your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated > hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... > I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean > drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and > old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by > passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league > practice sessions ? > Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and > the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group > of hosts to select races from.. > > These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) > and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our > VROC/GPL community... > > Cheers, > Ron Ayton > Australia

Hi, Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & sensible drivers out of their servers.. Latency capping is a real joke....!! This is the most over-rated setting in GPL on-line.. Instead of a Latency cap limit, GPL should have had a Quality cap limit.. Anyone with a high latency will not join a race anyway, and if they do, then they will soon realise that it is not in the best interest of the other drivers to stay there, but a latency of up to .700 is perfectly raceable, without causing any problems or warping at all, providing the quality of the client is around the .980 to 1.000 area. Guy Wilson removed his Latency capping from his server, (thanks Guy, it was appreciated) which enabled us in the more remote sections of the globe to race on his server, and i DO race on Guy's server on a regular bassis and i have NEVER EVER had a problem with warping or spatial displacement, and my pings on Guys server are NEVER under .630 ms when i connect at 26400. If however, i connect at 56k, then my latencys are usually under .500, but my quality is poor, so i warp and jump around like a mexican jumping bean, so where is the sense in that ? It seems that those of us who are striving for quality connections and do take the time to set up our DUNS and connections for quality racing are being penalized by low latency cap limits on many servers, yet the same servers allow us to join if we speed up our connections at the expense of quality, which DOES make for warping and poor on-line performance.. Education and understanding of latency and quality issues is certainly needed in this area.. Latency capping is not the answer..!! Passwording...... Passwording non-league dedicated servers and non-leage races, is also having an impact on our GPL community.. If a dedicated host wants to password non-leage races, then that is your right of course, but lately, there are on average 3 to 4 dedicated hosts that require passwords to participate in non-league races... I can understand that we all want good races, with decent & clean drivers, but why help kill off the fun and enjoyment that newcomers and old hands alike can have with a choice of availabe servers by passwording dedicated hosts that are not holding league races or league practice sessions ? Usually, these hosts have 0 drivers on the hosts for day after day, and the whole GPL community misses out on the advantages of having a group of hosts to select races from.. These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our VROC/GPL community... Cheers, Ron Ayton Australia

> Good to hear from you, and i wish you all the best with your new season > in the GPVL. Well I ain't gonna win it this year either Ron !! I've just signed the deal with Old man Cooper for this season. He needs a star driver to try and get him a few podiums for a change ;-) Should be fun mixing it with the pack rather than spending another lonely season running ahead of it, trying to hunt down the aliens.......... MS

While on the subject. I'm using a cable modem and usually have a pretty good connection, but on a few servers I always get a quality limit of .660. It's seems too much of a coincidence that the number is always .660 or very close to it. What setting in the servers, or my, core.ini could be limiting me to 2/3 quality? -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

Mark.seery wrote in message ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> Good to hear from you, and i wish you all the best with your new season >> in the GPVL. > >Well I ain't gonna win it this year either Ron !! > >I've just signed the deal with Old man Cooper for this season. He needs a >star driver to try and get him a few podiums for a change ;-) > >Should be fun mixing it with the pack rather than spending another lonely >season running ahead of it, trying to hunt down the aliens..........

Does that make me "King Alien"? Well, the more I think of it, Smiley might be faster. Mike Barlow 2000 GPVL Over-All Champion 2000 GPVL Ovals Champion

You probably have the net _mdm_client_send_every = 2 and size 84 in your core.ini file. Try setting it to 3 and 84 as in the lines below. net_mdm_client_send_every = 3 ; Client packet freq on dialup net_mdm_client_send_size = 84 ; Client packet size on dialup Some hosts force clients to use the same settings as the server so on those it would seem ok. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8FC87DB25dscurlock@news... > While on the subject. I'm using a cable modem and usually have a pretty good > connection, but on a few servers I always get a quality limit of .660. It's > seems too much of a coincidence that the number is always .660 or very close to > it. What setting in the servers, or my, core.ini could be limiting me to 2/3 > quality? > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -5.09

I assume this is under the [Communications] section, where I don't have an entry for mdm_client_send at all.(shown below) Without an entry, wouldn't I automatically default to, and therefore be in sync with, the servers settings? [ Communications ] alternate_ip_addr_lookup = 1 ; Find IP addresses another way show_meters = 1 ;connection meters on disable_modem = 1 ; 0 = Modem enabled ; 1 = Modem disabled [email hidden] (Ian P) wrote in <8rtd8c$3f7$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>You probably have the net _mdm_client_send_every = 2 and size 84 in your >core.ini file. >Try setting it to 3 and 84 as in the lines below. > >net_mdm_client_send_every = 3 ; Client packet freq on dialup >net_mdm_client_send_size = 84 ; Client packet size on dialup > > >Some hosts force clients to use the same settings as the server so on those >it would seem ok. > >-- >Ian P ><email invalid due to spam> > > >Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8FC87DB25dscurlock@news... >> While on the subject. I'm using a cable modem and usually have a pretty >good >> connection, but on a few servers I always get a quality limit of .660. >It's >> seems too much of a coincidence that the number is always .660 or very >close to >> it. What setting in the servers, or my, core.ini could be limiting me to >2/3 >> quality?

-- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

Yes it is under [Communications] I'm not sure, but if there's no entry I think it would use the default settings which I think are 84 / 2. I think the best thing is to try it out and see if it fixes it. These are all of the communications settings from my core.ini. [ Communications ] show_meters = 1 bcast_listserv_req_freq = 10.000000 ; Request race list frequency bcast_ping_port = 0 ; Ping port number (0=default) bcast_send_freq = 4.000000 ; Broadcast frequency (seconds) clock_adj_delay = 8 ; How often may client adjust clock? disable_ipx = 1 ; Disable IPX support disable_modem = 1 ; Don't look for/use modems disable_network = 0 ; Disable network support disable_tcp_ip = 0 ; Disable TCP/IP support ignore_net_read_errors = 1 ; Don't disco if error reading pkt ignore_net_send_errors = 1 ; Don't disco if error sending pkt ip_addr_lookup_timeout = 2 ; Timeout to find own IP address mem_client_send_every = 1 ; Client packet freq via memory mem_client_send_size = 276 ; Client packet size via memory mem_server_send_every = 1 ; Server packet freq via memory mem_server_send_size = 516 ; Server packet size via memory net_mdm_client_send_every = 3 ; Client packet freq on dialup net_mdm_client_send_size = 84 ; Client packet size on dialup net_mdm_server_send_every = 3 ; Server packet freq on dialup net_mdm_server_send_size = 84 ; Server packet size on dialup net_use_mdm_bandwidth_for_tcp_ip = 1 ; Use modem bandwidthfor TCP/IP Good luck. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8FC89FC29dscurlock@news... > I assume this is under the [Communications] section, where I don't have an > entry for mdm_client_send at all.(shown below) Without an entry, wouldn't I > automatically default to, and therefore be in sync with, the servers settings? > > [ Communications ] > alternate_ip_addr_lookup = 1 ; Find IP addresses another way > show_meters = 1 ;connection meters on > disable_modem = 1 ; 0 = Modem enabled > ; 1 = Modem disabled > > > [email hidden] (Ian P) wrote in <8rtd8c$3f7$[email hidden]>: > > >You probably have the net _mdm_client_send_every = 2 and size 84 in your > >core.ini file. > >Try setting it to 3 and 84 as in the lines below. > > > >net_mdm_client_send_every = 3 ; Client packet freq on dialup > >net_mdm_client_send_size = 84 ; Client packet size on dialup > > > > > >Some hosts force clients to use the same settings as the server so on those > >it would seem ok. > > > >-- > >Ian P > ><email invalid due to spam> > > > > > >Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:8FC87DB25dscurlock@news... > >> While on the subject. I'm using a cable modem and usually have a pretty > >good > >> connection, but on a few servers I always get a quality limit of .660. > >It's > >> seems too much of a coincidence that the number is always .660 or very > >close to > >> it. What setting in the servers, or my, core.ini could be limiting me to > >2/3 > >> quality? > > > > > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -5.09 > > Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site > http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

I have also found (BTW I'm living in South Africa) that I can have perfectly enjoyable races connecting to servers in Europe and the US. More often than not I will be able to find half a dozen servers with a ping of around 400-500, occasionaly even in the 300's. Anything up to 600-700 is okay and only when the ping gets over 800 do other competitors start to jump all over the track and it gets difficult to race. Chris -- Simbok Racing www.geocities.com/simbokza --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.191 / Virus Database: 91 - Release Date: 00/09/11

Hiya Mark, That is a good idea actually. I have been meaning to update that file for a while now, as i wrote that early info basically for GPL ver.1.00 and with the newer patched versions of GPL and the changes to the Core.ini & Synch methods etc, it is a bit out-dated now.. Thanks for the reminder. :) We do the same in the GMSS too Mark, and always open our practice sessions to everyone as well, with only our actual league races being closed sessions.. Don't tell me about "red" races LOL... Lately, everytime i log on, i see a heap of blue and red races, with an occasional orange race thrown in for good measure, just to build my hopes up.. :) Been a fair while since i actually saw a green race.. <G> Good to hear from you, and i wish you all the best with your new season in the GPVL. Cheers, Ron Mark.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in article <Q1hE5.23749$[email hidden]>... > Agreed Ron. > > Those of us who have been around long enough know all about thelatency Vs > quality issue. Maybe it might be an idea to repost that thing you didabout > setting up DUN's periodically as a FAQ in here. > > As far as the password thing goes, I have personally made it policyto keep > informal practice sessions for the GPVL as non passworded and only"close > the doors" at actual point scoring races. It's a great way to seegood > newcomers in action with a view to possible recruitment. Curteous andwell > behaved drivers will be given an invitation to join, many of whom, Imight > not have noticed in action elsewhere. > > I too am getting tired of logging on these days, only to see a hoardof red > races and have to spend an eternity looking at the small talk in the > chatrooms. Hosts might be reminded that there is always the kickfunction > available if someone decides to start playing up. > > MS

In article <01c0317c$ad6d48a0$9a3e36cb@ronayton>, "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> writes: >These practices of ridiculously low latency capping (less than .700) >and paswording all races, is starting to have a negative impact on our >VROC/GPL community... > Well, I don't do *either*. Unless they're running league races, my servers are open to all to join. I don't even password the league 'practices'. I reserve the right to use my server for 'team' practices, however...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +49.67 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <Q1hE5.23749$[email hidden]>, "Mark.seery" <[email hidden]> writes: >I too am getting tired of logging on these days, only to see a hoard of red >races and have to spend an eternity looking at the small talk in the >chatrooms. Hosts might be reminded that there is always the kick function >available if someone decides to start playing up. That doesn't work if I'm not actually AT the races I host. My servers run unattended... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +49.67 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

>> Hosts might be reminded that there is always the kick function >> available if someone decides to start playing up. How does that work? I've hosted many races but not known about this.

Ron for President !!! JensSchumi On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 21:59:47 GMT, "Ron Ayton" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hi, >Lately, over the last 6 months or so, i have noticed that more and more >dedicated and regular hosts are imposing latency cap limits and >passwords on their non-league races, which is keeping a lot of good & >sensible drivers out of their servers..<snip> --------------------------------------------- LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ GPLRank: -2.61