Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SLtesterL2

Tips on making SL run well using wifi?

Recommended Posts

so It turns out that i can't use the eternet cable i just bought since it would be a pain to go into my parents room everytime i want to play by connecting the cable to the router box (sigh) but do u guys have any tips oh how i can play efficently while using wifi graphics aren't the issue its the darn rezing of builds/objects/avatars! >:( plz help me so i can enjoy this game fully without spending most of my play time waiting for the game to load :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you must use a wireless connection, turn down your graphics to as low as you can stand. Try Medium or Low, in addition, lower your draw distance to as low as you can tolerate, if you are mostly indoors it won't matter much anyways.

Also, the number of avatars that are rendered you can turn down to something around 4 or less.

Try disabling HTTP textures and see if that helps.

Do not have any other applications or windows open at the same time as SL.

Also, see if you can get them to let you have a wired connection of your own, you can get a cable splitter or there may already be a connection point somewhere else in the place you live.

example of a cable splitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wireless is unpredictable at best for SL.  Even under ideal circumstances you never know when your nieghbor turns on his/her stereo that has wireless speakers, or your nieghbor's son starts playing with his brand new remote controlled dune buggy in his basement, or your across the street nieghbor opens their garage door with the remote........your "smart" TV gets a Netflix update, or the Internet enabled refridgerator updates the clock.  There are infinite potential sources for interference.......most of which you have no control over.  That's why LL (and most people here) discourage wireless for SL.  But, there are a few things that you can do that might help.  First, try to get a clear shot at the router....avoid as many walls as possible between your laptop and the router.  If there are any steel (or metal) cabinets between you and the router position yourself with your laptop so that the cabinets are not in direct line with the router.  Try to stay as close as possible to the router (if it's in your parents bedroom and your bedroom is across the house and upstairs, then maybe find a better place like the living room (get closer to the router).  If you have access to the router configuration then "lock down" the router to only allow specified wireless devices to connect.......if you don't have that access have one of your parents do that (not only will that help a little on the quality of the wireless signal but it helps the security of the whole home network). 

And don't get frustrated when things get wonky........or you get disconnected from the servers.  That's a product of using wireless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so..........large caches present problems all their own.  You're assuming that once downloaded and placed in the cache it's there for use.  That's true as long as there are no changes since the texture or object was placed in the cache.......but that's a rare thing.  Everything changes constantly in SL.  Any cache (not just SL caches) get heavily fragmented due the constant saving of data.....that data gets thrown helter skelter into the cache.  A large cache has much more room to scatter all that data.  There is point where there's diminishing returns..........it takes longer to find all the bits and pieces it defeats the purpose of even having a cache.  Larger caches that are heavily fragmented tend to get corrupted more often than smaller caches.....again that defeats the purpose of a cache.  I've found the LL default cache size it just about right........500 MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the disadvantages of wireless, but personally I have used a wireless connection for years and years without any real issues. The only time I do have issues is when I use the landline phone, that's when in most cases SL decides to log me out. Packet loss is well within reason, down/upload speed is just fine and the ping is fine aswell.

Something that is very important for wireless, at least in my experience, is the position of your adapter. Both myself and someone else I know had wireless issues (another room than the one I use for SL), for me simply rotating the computer 180 degrees (it was positioned sideways so that was no problem) made the connection go from nearly non existant to pretty much perfect, the other connection was solved by adding a USB extension cable to the adapter and taping the adapter under the desk rather than sticking it in the socket of the computer. In both cases the adapter was moved less than a meter.

Walking through the house with an iPad shows the same thing, very good reception vs pretty bad reception as I move. This does indicate interference, but that shouldn't be a showstopper.

EDIT If you want a big cache without the disadvantages of fragmentation, use either an SSD hard disk or a RAMdisk, those can't be fragmented like mechanical HDs. It doesn't stop corruption of cache though I've noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am on a wireless network. I run on high graphics settings often with shadows enabled, so I know it is perfectly possible to do.

As Peggy said, the big issue with wireless is interference. So many things can disturb and degrade the wireless signal. If you have a good wireless signal, having followed her advice on how to improve things, I would recommend using the 802.11n over 802.11b/g if you have the chance. The n standard has a higher throughput - potentially - than the other standards, so it is better for SL (in theory :)). This standard is more susceptible to interference and signal degradation and has, at least in practice, a shorter range than the other standards. Which of these are used is probably possible to configure in the wireless router settings.

I have tried different settings for the cache, but have not seen any advantages to changing it, and have mostly kept it at the standard 512mb.

On a wireless net you will most likely have some packet loss, which will cause slow rezzing of both textures and objects.

I would also try, as Charolotte mentioned, to play around with the http textures setting. There are some issues with http textures - not really specific to wireless networks - causing texture loading to fail sometimes. Disabling this might improve things to a degree. In later versions of the viewer it seems to me textures over http has worked better, and as far as I understand, more improvements are in the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use wireless at home and ethernet at work, and my overall experience at home is much better (though it would be even better using ethernet, I assume).

there might be minor issues that I don't even notice anymore, but one can't say genrerally "don't go wifi", it depends on the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your main probblem is loading textures here's something you might try: Go to your "Develop" menu (if you don't see it go into preferences and there will be an option to turn your "Advanced" and "Develop" menus on) and go to the entry that says "HTTP Textures". Change it from selected to de-selected or vice versa. Iti's a newer way of loading things that works faster and better IN THEORY but some people have problems with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are having problems with lag and such, I'd say it is more your hardware than the fact you are using wireless. I know a lot of people say don't use wireless but I have been using wireless and SL for more then 4 years and have never had a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually use wi-fi at home, and I aslo use wi-fi in hotel rooms.

At home, my laptop sits about midway between two wi-fi routers.   One is built into the cable modem from our ISP, and it is totally unusable for SL.  While the ISP provided wi-fi runs web browser OK, and steams video and music OK, when I use it with SL, I get unacceptable packet loss when using SL.  That modem typically gives 10 -20 % packet loss in SL, and that much packet loss leads to terrible lag and avatars that never load, and can even freeze  my laptop so that I have to reboot.  I have a second wi-fi router, connected by an ethernet cable to the first.  It gives me a very clean SL connection, very low packet loss, I usually run SL on high graphics setting, and turn shadows on or off depending on the scene, not connection performance.  Usually (better than 90% of the time).  But on odd days, undoubtedly due to outside RF interference, packet loss rears its ugly head, and I start to see a lot of lag and poor performance.  I have an ethernet cable, I can plug into either router, it makes the problem go away on bad days.

On the road, wi-fi usually (about 2 nights out of 3) works without a problem.  I pay attention to packet loss.  When it gets over about 1%, things begin to get increasingly laggy.  If I have to use such a connection, it does help a bit to go to low graphics, pull in the draw distance, and crank down the maximum browser bandwidth to 300 kbps.  Oh, and turn off http texture transport, that seems to be particularly sensitive to packet loss.

From my experience, I associate most of the ills of wi-fi with packet loss.  And there seems to be something about the SL software that makes it particularly sensative to something.  I've heard techies say something about problems with the basic protocol, I really dont know.  Interestinly enough, even a wi-fi connection that gives 10 -  30% packet loss in SL almost always tests OK for packet loss using speedtest.net.  That site seems to be useless for predicting SL packet loss.

In SL, you can get info on packet loss by choosing Help>About.  Along with a system summary, you get an average packet loss number, near the end of the report.  You can also see packet loss in real time using the statistics tab, ctrl-shift-1.  I usually use Firestorm, and it has a little "lag meter" that distplays both packet loss and bandwidth in the upper right corner of the browser.  That display is one of the main reasons I use FS. If I see packet loss begin to flicker, I know its time to plug in my ethernet cable, or if I am on the road, to take what measures I can (HTTP off, low maximum browser bandwidth, low graphics, short draw distance, move to the other side of the hotel room)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Peggy. Use the largest cache possible. The more stuff you have in cache the more likely you are to have a cache hit (the viewer finds what it needs in the cache). Each hit reduces the load on the network.

For all practical purposes, Peggy may be right. The cache does not work all that well, so you may not see any apparent improvement. The problem is in how the viewer and server handle the INTEREST LIST. That is the list of things the viewer needs to render a scene. That is being improved. So, eventually it will get better.

Since each connection and computer setup is different you need to check how well you cache is working. Open the Viewer Statistics panel (Ctrl-Shift-1). Look down the vertical list of items for Advanced, click it to expand it. Look for Texture -> Cache Hit Rate. 100% is the theoretical ideal. In my home my hit rate runs around 95% or higher. A larger cache should help push that number up. 

HTTP is a protocol that includes error correction, something lacking in the UDP protocol, which if you turn off the HTTP Texture Get the the viewer then uses. Most texture corruption comes from connection problems. So, using UDP is going to increase the likelihood of cache problems. But depending on a number of factors, UDP can be faster. However the new HTTP Library being tested in Project Viewers is WAY WAY faster than anything we have now.

You should know that your Ethernet cable can be up to 300 ft long without degrading the signal beyond useable. So, you could try a longer cable. If that significantly helps, talk to your parents about running a perminent cable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what people responded pretty much is right ... now if your problem is low signal you can buy a usb adapter those cost like 15-20 bucks and their antela is a lot stronger than the build in on laptops laptops normally have really weak antenas so that might help you a lot and does not cost that much really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cache Rate Firestorm 4.2.2.jpg

 


Nalates Urriah wrote:

Since each connection and computer setup is different you need to check how well you cache is working. Open the Viewer Statistics panel (Ctrl-Shift-1). Look down the vertical list of items for Advanced, click it to expand it. Look for Texture -> Cache Hit Rate. 100% is the theoretical ideal. In my home my hit rate runs around 95% or higher. A larger cache should help push that number up. 

HTTP is a protocol that includes error correction, something lacking in the UDP protocol, which if you turn off the HTTP Texture Get the the viewer then uses. Most texture corruption comes from connection problems. So, using UDP is going to increase the likelihood of cache problems. But depending on a number of factors, UDP can be faster. However the new HTTP Library being tested in Project Viewers is WAY WAY faster than anything we have now.

 


Screen shot of Cache in Statistics Bar. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just throw in my two cents, though i'm by no means a great tech guy.

I have a Samsung laptop, i 3 that was fairly low in cost. I know its not the top of the line by any stretch, uses on board graphics etc. I use it for SL on both my home system (wireless G) and my Verizon wireless ( 4G--if I can find a 4 G area) I use a step above the lowest graphics level, and so far it runs nice and smooth and the quality is pretty decent.

I'm not saying you can run it at ultra or get 60 fps, but what I have is certainly of decent quality and it runs nice and smooth. I'd say yes you can run it ok on wireless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of people who run SL on a wireless connection successfully.......and many more who cannot run SL at all on wireless.  I know it can be done successfully.  But I also know it can be difficult to maintain the connection and that there are more than normal spats of heavy lag that wireless connections have to endure.  I don't have a laptop and I'm really not a fan of them.  But I have a very good friend (who joined SL a couple days before I joined......she's the one who convinced me to try SL the first time after I saw a news blurp on TV and told her about it.  She tried it and then I did) who about a year ago went to the bad side and got a lap top.  She occassionally visits me with her lap top under her arm and we "play" SL from the same room.  She can run SL with medium settings and gets decent frame rates (usually around 20 but I've seen as high as 40 or so).  It takes her textures a few seconds longer to load than my desktop but not really that noticible......nothing most would complain about.  She connects wirelessly through my router.

Now there are few things that make easier for her to use SL over what I believe most people have or do.  First, my router is locked down tight.  I authorized her laptop to use my connection (and her iPhone and iPad too).......other than her laptop, iPhone and iPad the only other wireless device that has authorization to connect through my router is my iPhone.  Everything else that connects to through my router is hardwired.  Then there's the fact that my router is about 3 ft from my desktop tower and less than 8 ft from the coffee table where my friend sits her laptop when she comes over with it.  There are no obstructions since the router is sitting on a small wicker shelf mounted on the wall about 6 ft off the floor.....a direct, unobstucted line of sight from the laptop to the router.  My router is the "N" model so it's faster than the old "G" models.  I live in an older nieghborhood where there is space between the houses and no one my block has a garage door opener (most have car ports instead of garages).  I have no land phone in my home (I gave that up for the cell phone).  I have no fancy wireless appliances, no wireless security, no wireless stereo system.  I'm a firm believer in copper wire for most stuff.  I have a "smart" TV......it's connected with an Ethernet cable.  All that means is that my location, the way I have my network set up and the fact that I took extra steps to make sure my network is as secure as it reasonably be makes wireless less of a problem for my friend than what most people have to deal with.

We did a few experiments since both of us had heard all these horror stories about wireless and SL.  For the most part there is little outside interference to deal with due to my location but having my network locked down helps too..........there are no random smart phones from someone walking down the street or driving by.  They cannot connect so they don't interfere with my network.  We decided to "simulate" someone randomly connecting to the network.  I launched my browser on my iPhone which connects through my router wirelessly........less than 5 seconds later my friend lost connection to the SL servers (she got booted).  My desktop never hiccupped.  She relogged and then she launched her browser on her phone and the same thing happened.  We called each other using our phone's cell provider service.......it did not effect her on SL.  It's hit and miss.  A time or two I've called her on her cell phone when she was on SL at her house........and she complained to me that I booted her from SL.  Other times nothing effected her SL.  There are times when she loses her connection often and times where she never loses connection.......that has happened here in my house too (just not as often as at her house.....but that's really hard to judge since she's only brought her laptop over to my house a few times).  Using wireless connection for SL is simply unpredictable..........sometimes it works great and sometimes it doesn't.  I know I suspect unsecured networks as one of the biggest culprits causing wireless conections to fail.  Every time we used our phones to connect via the router, she got booted (almost immediately).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

There are lots of people who run SL on a wireless connection successfully.......and many more who cannot run SL at all on wireless.

That's a pretty bold statement, I very much doubt you can back that up with proper data. Ofcourse I could be wrong.

People who do not have issues don't say so because there's nothing to say in the first place, that is until a thread like this pops up and as you can see at least most people responding, have no issues at all with wifi.

My wifi is locked, I'm forced to by law.

However browsing with my ipad does not interfere, nor does the other computer connected to the router using wifi.

I live in a somewhat densely populated area.

This computer and the router are 15 feet or so apart, two walls in between, the other computer is slightly closer but has a 20 cm concrete floor with steel reinforcement in the way.

I get a capped 60 fps on ultra in most places (uncapped it easily goes over 100), on very busy sims I get 20-25, that's an exception and I don't think it's the connection causing it, again I could be wrong.

I get a steady 0.0% packet loss.

I have no spats of lag.

What can I say more?

Some interesting and useful info on the phones using the router, I'll give you that :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's a pretty bold statement, I very much doubt you can back that up with proper data. Ofcourse I could be wrong.
People who do not have issues don't say so because there's nothing to say in the first place, that is until a thread like this pops up and as you can see at least most people responding, have no issues at all with wifi.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

No that was not a "pretty bold" statement and no I do not have "proper data" to back it up.  That is very obvious and you know perfectly well that no data that is available to anyone in these forums to even try to back a statement like mine up.  That holds equally true for you "pretty bold" statement.  I believe it was obvious from the entirety of my post that my observations (and therefore my opinions) about WiFi were just that........opinions.  I used words like "believe" that directly imply that my statement is opinion.  I also spent a few words and sentences relating that my location and the way I have my network set up is not typical of others' locations and setups (but, no I cannot back that up either......it's an opinion).  I did say that my friend can use WiFi successfully at my house.......so, even though I do use WiFi myself, I was actually one of those responding the expressed "no issues" with WiFi except the few and very limited experiments that my friend and I tried....those experiments were not scientific and therefore the results were not conclusive.........they merely backed up what I believe (please the the word "believe") to be issues with WiFi and SL.

I only posted in this thread because the OP asked for tips..........I gave some that I thought might be helpful.  How did you attempt to help the OP.  All you've said is your WiFi works fine.  The OP wants to know how he/she can make his/her WiFi work fine too.  You only decided to jump in to dispute what I said.  And how is that helping the OP?  It is a known fact that WiFi often causes issues...........you can "back that up" with a search for wireless issues and problems in these forums (make sure you go back a few years.....like back to 2003 or so).  Nothing's changed much with WiFi except speed and security......it's still a transmitted signal across the air.  There are still millions of transmissions across the air at almost unlimited frequencies (actually there are more transmissions now than just a few years ago due to the advent of digital transmissions taking my less bandwidth than the old analog signals........take the across the air television signals recently go all digital to open up the frequencies for more traffic).  WiFi is subject to interference that wired is not subject to....that, my friend, is a fact.  And because of that fact one needs to try to limit the exposure to those potential interferring signals.  That is what I tried to do..........not taut wired over wireless.  If you can use wireless successfully that's great........if you can't then you need to try things to make it possible to use wireless great just like you.  That's what I tried to do..........and I get an argument from my attempts (and not from the OP........from someone who chimed in just to dispute me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god is it short fuse day?

You might want to read my posts and you'll notice I say it's very important where you put your adapter. I said moving it a very short distance can make a world of difference. I think that is pretty helpful. I also said you mentioning the phone was helpful.

Saying there are more people having issues with wireless than there are people not having issues is not an opinion, it's a fact and it might or might not be true. So if you say it is true, that needs some backing up. I don't see how it is very obvious at all. Stating a fact without any proof is a bold statement if you ask me. Now that is an opinion, observations are not. Saying how your network is set up is not an opinion either and it is something you can see first hand. You can't see first hand if there are more people using wireless that have issues than there are people using wireless not having issues. The most you can see is there are many people having wifi issues, but that doesn't support the statement in any way.

The only reason I responded is people say wireless is useless for SL over and over. Posts like yours seem to back that up, but nothing backs up the claim. We don't even know how big the difference is between the OP's wired and wireless connection. From what I read in the original post, the wired connection was never used. I won't deny a wired connection is less likely to get broken, never did.

Making the connection non-public is sound advice, not just for interference reasons, many of your posts are helpful. That doesn't mean people can't stay critical of eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't have a short fuse today (I didn't get up on the wrong side of the bed).  What set me off with your post was your initial statement that my statement was a "bold" one and I couldn't produce and "proper data" to back it up.  That's confrontational and argumentitve from the very start.  My statement was not bold.......it was a statement based on both observations and unverified "facts" from reading numerous posts and complaints about SL and wireless connections.  It also has a little bit to do with LL's refusal to endorse wireless for SL access (LL is the "expert" here).  The only fact there is about wireless use for SL is that there are many more complaints about issues when using wireless.......everything else is conjecture and opiinon.  I know (for a fact) that wireless can be successful with SL........I've observed it with my own eyes.  But that does not say that wireless doesn't have issues with SL where hardwired does not (that, also, is a fact).  I cannot produce and "proper data" to support my opinion any more that you can produce the data to back up your claims......that data is not available.  Yet you challenged me to produce the "proper data".

That is the reason for my second post directed at you.  You disputed my "opinion" by the "proper data" insertion.  You know the data is not available.  I never said wireless will not work.......in fact I said it will.  I tried to tell the reasons why is works for some and by telling that I also tried to tell why it might not work for others.  If you want me to "endorse" for use with SL, I cannot do that with a clear conscious.  There are just too many obstacles to deal with that you don't have to deal with on and Ethernet connection.

Everything stated in these forums are "bold" statements with no way to produce "proper data".  As far as I know no one in these forums are experts in Linden Lab........of course I could be wrong,  Who knows who anyone here is?  One, or more, of the posters could be LL experts in disguise (and we would never know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading far more than I am writing. You said there are more people using wireless WITH issues than there are people using wireless WITHOUT issues. What you write is a fact. I doubt that fact and was wondering where you got it from. Nothing more nothing less. Maybe bold isn't the right word, but that doesn't change anything apart from the tone I'd say. I wasn't disputing any opinions you have, I disputed a fact you stated. An unverified fact. I wonder what I claim that needs any verification.

Yes plenty of people have a bad connection because they use wireless, that's very verifiable. That doesn't mean they should get a wired connection as so often is suggested. I think throughout this thread there are plenty of tips to get a reliable connection without having to run wires throughout a house, resulting in ugly cables everywhere and holes in walls.

So I don't see why wireless is always compared to wired if you can just as easily compare a good wireless setup with a bad one.

Not everything stated in these forums can be considered "bold" the way I ment it or any other way. These forums are a medium like any other. If what you say is true, nothing could be verified, that's just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pluses and minus for both methods.  One's easier to initially set up, one's not.  One's less prone to outside factors that are often not in the control of the user.  Both can work.  I did not say anything else.  Only that using one (the wireless method) requires more to guarantee (as much as either method can guarantee) reliable, consistant connections.  I'm not arguing that.  I'm suggesting that anyone should use one method over the other.........I'm suggesting that if anyone wants to use one method (the wireless method) they need to do things that anyone using the other method (the wired method) does not have to concern themselves with.

That's it......nothing more, nothing less.  I'm done arguing.

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...