Himal

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2006
70
0
18,630
I live in bumfunk FL, so the only way I was going to get anything close to broadband was satellite internet. Its great on a strait download and surfing the internet but thats about it. I can play FEAR with little lag, but starwars bf2 is allmost unplayable online. I dont understand why theres such a big difference, fear is much more graphic intenseive. Is there anyone out there with satellite that can play games, or know a way I can?
 

choknuti

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2006
1,046
0
19,280
Actually the graphics don’t really matter since on a FPS like fear most of the data is on your local computer. What matters is the the data that’s going through the net (that is the amount of players, amount of AI units, etc) and how well the network code is optimised in the game that you are playing. It is mainly a hit and run thing with no real guide to see how the game will perform. Try posting on the forums of the games that you are interested in and ask other players regarding lag issues.

Actually satellite is the worst choice for online games IMHO due to high lag. You could try playing the game using just the modem. If you are using a 2-way satellite connection then I guess your propositions are not so good.

Sorry couldn’t help you more your best course of action would be to try the forums of the games as I mentioned b4.

Good luck!
 

Iceblue

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2006
537
0
18,980
One thing you do know... using a satellite will add a minimum of 1/4 second lag time to every message packet sent or received. That is the round-trip time at the speed of light for the message to go from its source to the satellite and then from the satellite to its destination.