By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U has no ethernet port

Cobretti2 on 09 November 2012
Viper1 said:
KylieDog said:

"video"


1. I already told you that downloading wired will always be better.   But downloading isn't the same thing as online gaming.

2. He's also damn near 100 feet away from the router, in an office building, going through several walls.

3. Notice his ping was heavily fluctuating and not consistant.  That means he's got problems with his Wireless which he even points out himself.

4. Either way his connection pings were still low enough for online gaming.

5. 99.9% of video gamers will not be gaming in an office bulding, through mutiple walls, 100 feet way from the router.

6. Buy the dongle.

I watched that video and didn't the file transfer happen over LOCAL network? SO it is hihgly unsurpirsing that the file copied quicker.

What I want to knwo is what is his speed to the real world for file download. I bet both would give similar results.

I know my internet connection wired or wirelss I get the exact same download speed  from the same sources as an example.

 

ALSO NICE TO SEE MORE OF THE USUAL SONY SUSPECTS ENTER HERE TO ARGUE ABOUT A CONSOLE THEY WILL NEVER BUY EVEN IF IT WAS MADE OUT OF GOLD AND COST $10.



 

 

Around the Network
runqvist on 09 November 2012
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
 

It was 15.xxx ms, very close to be rounded to 16ms.

Your point was that I was not even aware of my screens input lag. But hey, of course you can show me a 46-47" screen which has better input lag. Maybe I will consider it to replace my working room tv, which is pretty old. I'm waiting.

You are just plain wrong about that, everyone has input lag. I think most people have at least 16ms input lag, usually even more. Therefore, that extra lag from wifi is always just extra lag compared to people with wired connections. As it also being said many times in this thread, wifi latency fluctuates which could bring you some lag spikes. Those are the worst on multiplayer games.

Again, if you cared about lag you would prioritize lag over size. 32" is more than enough unless you live in a palace.

Nikkom has posted here a wifi test with 8ms of ping using his laptop, so the minimum of 16 ms of lag for everybody... just no. If you have wifi spikes then you have a problem in your connection or you need to put your console closer to the router like Viper1 have explained before.

And again, if the sum of all the lag is below 16 ms you won't notice almost anything. Time is a discrete variable in videogames.


Uh, lol.

32" is adequate if your sofa is like 2 meters max from your tv. That would make one really tiny room. My tv set is roughly 4 meters from my couch and I could not do with any smaller television. In fact a bigger television would be really nice, but my girlfriend does not want any bigger screen for our living room.

He posted a picture with ping test, which differs a lot of the reality when you are gaming. Spikes come even if you have your wifi device within 2 meters from your router. There is a 14 meter distance from my router to my tv set, which is too much but that is the only option with my apartments layout.



Turkish on 09 November 2012
Viper1 said:
Turkish said:
Disappointing, ethernet port is a must because my wifi is shit.


Buy the dongle.   $15 from Amazon.

I'm not gonna spend an extra €15.



Player2 on 09 November 2012
runqvist said:
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
 

It was 15.xxx ms, very close to be rounded to 16ms.

Your point was that I was not even aware of my screens input lag. But hey, of course you can show me a 46-47" screen which has better input lag. Maybe I will consider it to replace my working room tv, which is pretty old. I'm waiting.

You are just plain wrong about that, everyone has input lag. I think most people have at least 16ms input lag, usually even more. Therefore, that extra lag from wifi is always just extra lag compared to people with wired connections. As it also being said many times in this thread, wifi latency fluctuates which could bring you some lag spikes. Those are the worst on multiplayer games.

Again, if you cared about lag you would prioritize lag over size. 32" is more than enough unless you live in a palace.

Nikkom has posted here a wifi test with 8ms of ping using his laptop, so the minimum of 16 ms of lag for everybody... just no. If you have wifi spikes then you have a problem in your connection or you need to put your console closer to the router like Viper1 have explained before.

And again, if the sum of all the lag is below 16 ms you won't notice almost anything. Time is a discrete variable in videogames.


Uh, lol.

32" is adequate if your sofa is like 2 meters max from your tv. That would make one really tiny room. My tv set is roughly 4 meters from my couch and I could not do with any smaller television. In fact a bigger television would be really nice, but my girlfriend does not want any bigger screen for our living room.

He posted a picture with ping test, which differs a lot of the reality when you are gaming. Spikes come even if you have your wifi device within 2 meters from your router. There is a 14 meter distance from my router to my tv set, which is too much but that is the only option with my apartments layout.

And you were going to use an ethernet cable?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Since you can't put the TV in your home to view it with an inclination of 40º (you'll need a roof of... 4-5m?) we have to go with manufacturers' recommendations, and 4m is almost fine for a 32" (At worst you'll have to move your couch 0.3m). Another option is a bigger TV like the Panasonic TC-L37S1.



noname2200 on 09 November 2012
KylieDog said:


Everyone knows wired is superior...

Yeah. So?

KylieDog said:


...even people with wifi networks at home often connect wired from the router for gaming. 

Right. Some people do. The Serious Online Gamer, to whom an ounce of lag is fatal to having fun playing a videogame. We all got that. Promise. 

Of course, unless Serious Online Gamers only play other Serious Online Gamers, then those Serious Online Gamers can't be too fussed about wi-fi, since many (most?) of their opponents are playing using wi-fi. Which is important, because as someone in this thread claimed, "it is more than ones persons connection that affects a game." So, folks using wi-fi to play games online must not be that big of an issue after all.

 

Or, and I ask this verbatim for the second time, do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that the majority, or even an appreciable share, of people gaming online with their non-Wii consoles or PCs are doing so via their systems' ethernet ports?

 

Turkish said:
Viper1 said:
Turkish said:
Disappointing, ethernet port is a must because my wifi is shit.


Buy the dongle.   $15 from Amazon.

I'm not gonna spend an extra €15.

But you're totally going to spend €300+ on the system. Right?



Around the Network
Player2 on 09 November 2012
noname2200 said:
 
 
Turkish said:
Viper1 said:
Turkish said:
Disappointing, ethernet port is a must because my wifi is shit.


Buy the dongle.   $15 from Amazon.

I'm not gonna spend an extra €15.

But you're totally going to spend €300+ on the system. Right?

He needs one to review Wii U games for metacritic, so yes.



runqvist on 09 November 2012
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
 

It was 15.xxx ms, very close to be rounded to 16ms.

Your point was that I was not even aware of my screens input lag. But hey, of course you can show me a 46-47" screen which has better input lag. Maybe I will consider it to replace my working room tv, which is pretty old. I'm waiting.

You are just plain wrong about that, everyone has input lag. I think most people have at least 16ms input lag, usually even more. Therefore, that extra lag from wifi is always just extra lag compared to people with wired connections. As it also being said many times in this thread, wifi latency fluctuates which could bring you some lag spikes. Those are the worst on multiplayer games.

Again, if you cared about lag you would prioritize lag over size. 32" is more than enough unless you live in a palace.

Nikkom has posted here a wifi test with 8ms of ping using his laptop, so the minimum of 16 ms of lag for everybody... just no. If you have wifi spikes then you have a problem in your connection or you need to put your console closer to the router like Viper1 have explained before.

And again, if the sum of all the lag is below 16 ms you won't notice almost anything. Time is a discrete variable in videogames.


Uh, lol.

32" is adequate if your sofa is like 2 meters max from your tv. That would make one really tiny room. My tv set is roughly 4 meters from my couch and I could not do with any smaller television. In fact a bigger television would be really nice, but my girlfriend does not want any bigger screen for our living room.

He posted a picture with ping test, which differs a lot of the reality when you are gaming. Spikes come even if you have your wifi device within 2 meters from your router. There is a 14 meter distance from my router to my tv set, which is too much but that is the only option with my apartments layout.

And you were going to use an ethernet cable?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Since you can't put the TV in your home to view it with an inclination of 40º (you'll need a roof of... 4-5m?) we have to go with manufacturers' recommendations, and 4m is almost fine for a 32" (At worst you'll have to move your couch 0.3m). Another option is a bigger TV like the Panasonic TC-L37S1.


Haha, lol. Manufacturers recommendations. You are a funny guy. Unless you are being serious, which would make you something else. Here is something for you to consider. 

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

And why yes, I have wired ethernet sockets to every one of my rooms when I moved in. Well, not in my bathrooms.



noname2200 on 09 November 2012
Player2 said:
noname2200 said:
Turkish said:

I'm not gonna spend an extra €15.

But you're totally going to spend €300+ on the system. Right?

He needs one to review Wii U games for metacritic, so yes.


Surely the man can click on "0" without the hassle of actually playing the games, no?



Player2 on 09 November 2012
runqvist said:
Player2 said:
runqvist said:
 


Uh, lol.

32" is adequate if your sofa is like 2 meters max from your tv. That would make one really tiny room. My tv set is roughly 4 meters from my couch and I could not do with any smaller television. In fact a bigger television would be really nice, but my girlfriend does not want any bigger screen for our living room.

He posted a picture with ping test, which differs a lot of the reality when you are gaming. Spikes come even if you have your wifi device within 2 meters from your router. There is a 14 meter distance from my router to my tv set, which is too much but that is the only option with my apartments layout.

And you were going to use an ethernet cable?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Since you can't put the TV in your home to view it with an inclination of 40º (you'll need a roof of... 4-5m?) we have to go with manufacturers' recommendations, and 4m is almost fine for a 32" (At worst you'll have to move your couch 0.3m). Another option is a bigger TV like the Panasonic TC-L37S1.


Haha, lol. Manufacturers recommendations. You are a funny guy. Unless you are being serious, which would make you something else. Here is something for you to consider. 

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

And why yes, I have wired ethernet sockets to every one of my rooms when I moved in. Well, not in my bathrooms.

Why do you want to sit so close that you need a higher resolution TV to do not be able to see the pixels? Those links doesn't say that the blue zone is wrong.

"Benefit of 1080p becomes noticeable" means that if you sit that close with a TV with lower resolution than 1080p you'll see the pixels. It isn't a recommended distance.



runqvist on 09 November 2012
Player2 said:

Why do you want to sit so close that you need a higher resolution TV to do not be able to see the pixels? Those links doesn't say that the blue zone is wrong.

"Benefit of 1080p becomes noticeable" means that if you sit that close with a TV with lower resolution than 1080p you'll see the pixels. It isn't a recommended distance.

Do you understand what you are reading? Did you take a look only at the first chart?