Jump to content

bosflo

trying to understand this

Recommended Posts

I just tested my download speed because we all know how important our wifi speed is going to be. I have 52 dl speed on my laptop and 270 dl speed on my phone. They both us the same network so how are they so different? If the game was played on the phone I would be all set but of course it will need to be played on the slow laptop. Can anyone help me understand what this all means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your laptop may be connected on a 2.4ghz channel to your wireless access point. Your phone may be connected on a 5ghz channel.  5ghz channel provide faster connection to your device as long as you have a strong signal.

Check to see if your laptop supports 5ghz wifi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bosflo said:

I have 52 dl speed on my laptop and 270 dl speed on my phone

What does 52 dl mean?  52Mbps?

You should be aware your download speed tests will vary throughout the day and night and the location you've selected to connect to for the test.  You would need to determine the connecting MSFS server's location (which could also vary based on connection loads and you may get routed to a different location) and run tests to that location.  For example, here in OR my connection speed to Seattle WA is 894 Mbps right now, but my connection speed to NY is 431 Mbps, so server location is important.

I would NOT recommend WiFi for the new MSFS or anything that is latency critical, hard wire Cat6e cable to ISP modem or switch if you want the best speed and stability.  WiFi is susceptible to all kinds of interference, Microwave ovens, Electric train tracks, cars driving by, other people's electrical devices in close vicinity, vacuum cleaners, etc. etc.  It's certainly NOT the connection of choice.  Not saying WiFi will not work, it might work well enough, but it wouldn't be the best possible connection if that's your goal.

But as pointed out, it's likely your laptop is running at 2.4Ghz rather than 5Ghz wireless frequency.  Your laptop might be able to operate at wireless frequency 5Ghz but if the connection is not stable they will often automatically drop down to 2.4Ghz.  You phone likely does the same, but it's also possible your phone is picking up a better signal strength and is able to keep a 5Ghz connection.

Cheers, Rob.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe 50 mbit DL isn't more than enough. But as mentioned already it's more about stability than speed, especially when it comes to streaming. I just ordered a new connection to use the hard line mainly for stability reasons. 


Amadeo Araujo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had around 120 Mbps which was more than enough. One day I decided to plug the ethernet cable and my speed went up to 700/800 Mbps instantly.

 

Edited by Noooch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noooch said:

I had around 120 Mbps which was more than enough. One day I decided to plug the ethernet cable and my speed went up to 700/800 Mbps instantly.

 

Sigh.

I should try. I may go from a nominal 4.5 Mbps to a dizzying  7.4, who knows 😂


Dominique

Simming since 1981 - Prepar3D v3 on a 4770 @ 4.4 GHz and a 1080 @ 2560*1440 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals - My YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bosflo said:

I have 52 dl speed on my laptop and 270 dl speed on my phone.

How are you testing the speed? In the end it's all down to what deal you have with your ISP. If you had a 100Mbps plan (I wish!), then that's the maximum you're ever going to get on the best day. Connecting through wifi is only likely to reduce that - it's just not possible to increase it.

 

Edited by vortex681

 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, domkle said:

Sigh.

I should try. I may go from a nominal 4.5 Mbps to a dizzying  7.4, who knows 😂

Nothing ventured, nothing gained! :smile:


J. R. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I would NOT recommend WiFi for the new MSFS or anything that is latency critical, hard wire Cat6e cable to ISP modem or switch if you want the best speed and stability.

Based on what information? I think it's way too early to say that WiFi would not be recommended.

As an IT professional (first a sysadmin for 10 years, now a programmer for 6), we use WiFi in all sorts of applications professionally that have reasonable bandwidth requirements and latency is generally not a problem (including live streaming applications). Within a normal sized home, WiFi is going to add at most 10-15ms latency, and given the most likely architecture employed by the engine (i.e. spitballing based on what I know about both systems and game engine programming), I highly, highly doubt that having the lowest possible pings is going to be any concern whatsoever. Similarly, I keep hearing about people being nervous about bandwidth requirements.

Yes, they have 2PB of data at their disposal. That's _their side_ data; I guarantee not client side. And keep in mind the earth is 192M mi^2. But mostly, the thing to keep in mind is that this is still just a game that has to run on commodity hardware. Mesh data is super tiny and very, very compressible (and by this I mean all in game vertex data). Texture data has to fit in VRAM, and loading in and out of VRAM constantly is extremely expensive. Which means even photogrammetry based buildings can't be massive 4K x 4K textures per building, you'd never get it all to fit. So, realistically, the onscreen data for your visible area is not going to be that massive.

I would be highly, highly surprised if the max needed bandwidth was any more than 20-25Mbits in the worst case (flying low and really fast), and I think latency will be meaningless unless it is high enough that it impacts your actual bandwidth. Aircraft simply don't change position or vector enough at scale to affect any caching mechanism that they would have in place to grab anticipated data. And, don't forget, this data has to still fit on your disk without eating it for breakfast (either in space by taking up all the space on disk unexpectedly, or with huge amounts of write cycles for SSDs), and additionally the most recent areas that you've been will already be on disk, so your connection is not a concern there.

All this says to me that bandwidth requirements will be very sane (think Netflix) and that latency will not be a big deal.

-Matt N

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Based on what information? I think it's way too early to say that WiFi would not be recommended.

As an IT professional (first a sysadmin for 10 years, now a programmer for 6), we use WiFi in all sorts of applications professionally that have reasonable bandwidth requirements and latency is generally not a problem (including live streaming applications). Within a normal sized home, WiFi is going to add at most 10-15ms latency, and given the most likely architecture employed by the engine (i.e. spitballing based on what I know about both systems and game engine programming), I highly, highly doubt that having the lowest possible pings is going to be any concern whatsoever. Similarly, I keep hearing about people being nervous about bandwidth requirements.

Yes, they have 2PB of data at their disposal. That's _their side_ data; I guarantee not client side. And keep in mind the earth is 192M mi^2. But mostly, the thing to keep in mind is that this is still just a game that has to run on commodity hardware. Mesh data is super tiny and very, very compressible (and by this I mean all in game vertex data). Texture data has to fit in VRAM, and loading in and out of VRAM constantly is extremely expensive. Which means even photogrammetry based buildings can't be massive 4K x 4K textures per building, you'd never get it all to fit. So, realistically, the onscreen data for your visible area is not going to be that massive.

I would be highly, highly surprised if the max needed bandwidth was any more than 20-25Mbits in the worst case (flying low and really fast), and I think latency will be meaningless unless it is high enough that it impacts your actual bandwidth. Aircraft simply don't change position or vector enough at scale to affect any caching mechanism that they would have in place to grab anticipated data. And, don't forget, this data has to still fit on your disk without eating it for breakfast (either in space by taking up all the space on disk unexpectedly, or with huge amounts of write cycles for SSDs), and additionally the most recent areas that you've been will already be on disk, so your connection is not a concern there.

All this says to me that bandwidth requirements will be very sane (think Netflix) and that latency will not be a big deal.

-Matt N

It`s always nice to see correction of opinion based on facts. Thank You Sir.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

Based on what information?

Real world experience from about year 2000 when I first starting using WiFi some 19 years ago ... you're certainly the first person I've encountered in the IT field that feels Wifi is a better option than a cable connection.

Are you say cabling is more prone to interference than WiFi?  Please provide some technical basis for this conjecture?

WiFi latency is NOT consistent, there is no reliable way you can determine it produces 10-15ms in ALL situations/environments.  Maybe for your specific environment over a control period of time you got a range of high and low latency ... but that's YOUR environment over YOUR testing period using what I assume is a single device?  So how is latency meaningless when a frame is being rendered every 16ms?  WiFi frequently disconnects and reconnects as the environment (beyond the user's control) changes, these disconnects/reconnects happen quickly but they'll spike latency values well beyond 15ms.  

https://www.howtogeek.com/217463/wi-fi-vs.-ethernet-how-much-better-is-a-wired-connection/

To quote this article which is consistent with just about every other source of information I've read/experience with WiFi vs. Cable:

Quote

Connection speed and quality isn’t just about raw bandwidth. Latency is also a big factor. In this case, latency is the delay in how long it takes for traffic to get from from a device to its destination. We often refer to latency as “ping” in the networking and online gaming worlds.

If reducing latency as much as possible is your concern—for example, if you’re playing online games and need reaction time to be as quick as possible—you’re probably better off with a wired Ethernet connection. Yes, there will be other latency that factors in along the Internet path between your device and the gaming server, but every little bit helps.

I can list a 1000 more articles just like this ... but like I said, WiFi might work but it's NOT the best possible connection for low latency, cable IS.

 

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

It`s always nice to see correction of opinion based on facts. Thank You Sir.

Grow up ... if you want to take personal jabs at me then PM me and we can go from there, no need to drag others into whatever hate you have towards me.

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latency under TCP/IP protocols are well known to cause bandwidth losses.

It is the biggest problem we always face over long distances communications, specially when we have to make data transfers across the world.

Each router will add a hop to the destination, which in turn adds delays, these delays inevitable cause any speed to retrieve the data to degrade despite of how much internet speed you might have. So for example if you are in Australia with a 100mbps internet connection and you wish to download a file from Hawaii or UK, which will have a considerable amount of latency (200ms to 300 ms) your real speed to get the file is about 20mbps.

That without considering international traffic contention and congestion on both sides of the communication.

This is the reason why Google, Amazon and Microsoft cloud services installs servers all around the world, so you connect to the closest server near you (Geo Location), reducing the TCP/IP delay as much as possible.

You can calculate accurately your real connection speed with formulas given your connection delay in milliseconds.

Where I am going with these? Wired connections have less than 1ms delay over TCP/IP before reaching the external world, while some WiFi connections will vary, having sometimes from 10ms to 20ms before reaching the external world. After reaching the external world more delay will added to the TCP/IP stack, making your real speed to send or receive data slower than wired media.

Before disputing the info, Google TCP/IP delay bandwidth issues.

And before anybody tells me I have no idea what I am talking about, I have been working in networking since I am 17years old, now 43 and I work full time as Corporate Network and Security Administrator for an international firm managing 12+ Datacenters around the world providing services to customers 24/7/365 ensuring that there is never any downtime and If you want my CV I am happy to provide it via PM.

Rob advise regarding WiFi is actually accurate. Wired is better than WiFi, if you want to use WiFi for streaming video games you can, but it will never be as fast as wired.

Regards,

Simbol 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, simbol said:

Rob advise regarding WiFi is actually accurate. Wired is better than WiFi, if you want to use WiFi for streaming video games you can, but it will never be as fast as wired.

This are the results from my main desktop development computer plugged into my D-Link Router via CAT6 cable:

Esy85.png

I don't have a screenshot of my main FS test computer, but the results are less stellar:

Ping = 24 ms  Download = 75.12 Mbps  Upload = 4.92 Mbps

Even though it too is connected via CAT6 cable, My auxiliary router in my Library room is limited to 100 Mbps. I'll need to replace it with a higher spec router to regain performance.

  • Upvote 1

Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556

Interests: Gauge Programming - 3d Modeling for Milviz

Many Thanks to All That Donated To Our Server Drive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...