[Battlezone]

Hello, we've been experiencing high players packetloss problems for few days now, like only 5% of the players have a packetloss under 1% according to NetStats, however, their client packetloss (shown using F5) shows 0.0%.
We have moved yesterday from the vps to a dedicated server, but the problem is still there, we have set our firewall up, verified the server connection and everything was almost perfect.
I tried grandlarc gamemode and it shows 5% pl for me for example, so the problem isn't script or plugin sided.
Surprisingly, the packetloss problem disappeared on the vps few hours after we switched, could this be a kind of an attack?

[IstuntmanI]

https://sampwiki.blast.hk/wiki/NetStats_PacketLossPercent :

Quote:

This function has been found to be currently unreliable the output is not as expected when compared to the client. Therefore this function should not be used as a packet loss kicker.

Yes, I have this problem too. The packet loss from that function is pretty high, while at F5 they usually have 0.0% or maximum 0.1%.

[Battlezone]

The strange thing is that it used to work fine before, then at a certain stage it started to give false positives.
Thanks for the response, if that's the case then I guess it would be appreciated if Kalcor works on a fix for the function / removes it.

[Meller]

It's always been known that SA:MP never had a functional packetloss network statistic function. There should be some topics about it. However, there's some workarounds this in plain PAWN code, look it up.

[Xeon™]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meller It's always been known that SA:MP never had a functional packetloss network statistic function. There should be some topics about it. However, there's some workarounds this in plain PAWN code, look it up.

you mean this https://sampwiki.blast.hk/wiki/NetStats_PacketLossPercent ?

[Sew_Sumi]

It says just not to use it as a kicker... Doesn't mean it's not useful in other areas.


That's like an anti-cheat that gives false positives for a certain hack, and the author is saying Don't ban because of this warning as it gives false positives...

It doesn't mean it's flawed or needs removal.