Wireless LAN Gaming

[erethryn]

Hi,

2 friends and I occasionally have LAN gaming sessions, we currently use a standard wired network with a hub.

I was wondering if we wish to shift to wireless gaming, what will be the difference in ping times (ie. noticable lag?), and what hardware will be required? Will it be possible just to use a wireless NIC in each machine and link them like that (ad-hoc?), or will an access point be required too?

Thanks

[washe]

I have used mixed network a couple of wireless clients with some wired clients, all worked perfectly for the games we played and pings are the same with wireless and wired.

Altought I havent tried an Ad-hoc mode.

Mainly I have 6 friends that get togheter we have been using a wireless router and a small 8 port hub.

Just dont lay around a 2.4 GHZ phone where you play and you will be fine.

[sr71000]

yea....u can use em in ad-hoc. from what i've heard, it works well. if you go w/ wireless g you shouldn't have a problem. wireless b you shouldn't have a problem either...but you will notice a different (imo)

[ArcticFox]

But do you really NEED the wireless network, that's the question. It's so much slower than a hard wire, there can be incompatibilities, it's less secure, highly prone to interference....shall I go on?

/rant

Just a thought to consider.

[RamonGTP]

It'll work fine... And unless you've got several dozen players, the difference between B and G should be 0... You figure, there are internet servers with T1 lines (1.5mbit) that have 32+ players. Wireless B gives you 11mbit, so it'll take quite a bit to saturate that, even though in real world numbers, you'll probably only achieve roughly half that, it should still handle a good load. I've played with as many as 5 people with 3 of them hooked to a wireless B router. Their pings were no higher than the two that were hardwired to the router.

It is prone to interference if you've got a 2.4GHz cordless phone nearby and it rings, or someone is using it.

[Whir]

The only problem I've ever had is trying to run the server off a wireless connection. For some reason we'd get bad bursts of lag.

Playing on the wireless was perfectly fine though.

And that was on a 100Mb wireless, so it shouldn't have been a bandwidth issue.

[erethryn]

Thanks for the info.

Guess I don't really need wireless, but it was just a thought to cut down on the jungle of wires that need to be connected whenever I drag my computer across (what can I say, I'm just lazy )

[kwebb]

You'll want to use an AP if you go wireless. Wireless for a LAN party would be suspect. The analogy to a server on a T-1 really isn't applicable here. Wireless for a machine or two is fine and occasionally might be ok for more but to put say, 10 people, on one AP would be marginal at best and possibly a big problem for gaming. You can always try and see how it works for you under load.

100 Mb wireless is a marketing tool by the way. At least for a microwave product any of us could afford.

[washe]

Altought the freedom of wireless clients its great, as one said you evade the jungle of cables around there.. a wireless G will be best suited its a little more expensive but its almost double the bandwith if I remember correclty.

BTW Happy Gaming!

[kwebb]

Bandwidth isn't the entire problem here. In fact it's almost irrelevant between b and g. Shared medium an AP, so the more you put on there the more each node has to wait to send/receive data. .11g is the better choice, and not that much more expensive anyway but for gaming with several/many people, one AP is probably not going to be the best solution for you. Might work fine though, test and see.

A switch with multiple AP's (3 non overlapping channels) is the optimum choice if your comitted to wireless for your LAN parties.