Siryak

Unfortunately yes, but if this does not get better soon I can not live with these ping times. This takes what little ounce of gaming I had and flushes it down the toilet.

Here is why I am thinking about getting Hughes... My ping times tonight on Wildblue: Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2063ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1932ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1671ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1419ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1743ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2399ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2210ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1899ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1672ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1335ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2381ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2963ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1356ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2057ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1669ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1600ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2129ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2269ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2012ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1148ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1749ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1267ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2227ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1492ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2026ms TTL=46 Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135: Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1148ms, Maximum = 2963ms, Average = 1867ms

Anybody out there with a HN700S that wouldn't mind posting results? I am dieing to see if it gets better pings than the DW7000 lol.

Yah it happens. I am on my second 360 as well. Except on mine the graphics card fried.

Hmm...They improved for a member on the broadbandreports boards. So I guess so far it is mixed results here. Do you have a HN700s or a DW7000? Because I hear that the new HN700s's tend to get better ping times than the other modems.

Could someone on HN maybe run a regular ping(preferably long) and then run this ping in the background---> ping yahoo.com -t -l 800 What that does is it puts the system under a load thus if HN is like Wildblue(used to be) the pings will improve whenever it is under a load. But if somebody would do that for me it would be greatly appreciated.

If you have Xbox Live give Call of Duty 3 a try. Best network code I have ever seen, and it plays great on satellite.

I must say I was shocked myself. Although you will notice the lag, it is still playable. This game has the best network code I have ever seen. It uses some P2P style hosting system. It also uses Client Side Hit Detection.

Mine is Sircolby45.

I won games all the time on my 550+ latency. I am telling you the coding on some of the Xbox Live games are outstanding. I can still play Call of Duty 3 and come in first with latency like this.(Granted it is the only game I can still play) Not as enjoyable as it was with the lower latency, but it is still playable. I have even came in first multiple times. 24 player matches. Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2298ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1758ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2516ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1686ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1162ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1160ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1373ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1199ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1202ms TTL=46 Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1131ms TTL=46 Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1131ms, Maximum = 2516ms, Average = 1548ms

I have played it on dial-up as well and my only issue was the occasional over saturation of bandwidth. Otherwise it played great. Considering the fact that I was coming from High 500 to Low 600 pings the latency did not bother me at all.

Sharp AQUOS and Samsung are both outstanding TVs.

Very true. But DSL should give him the low latency he needs. Dial-up would be usable on Xbox Live if it wasn't for the bandwidth getting over saturated. I used to play on my Wildblue satellite connection(even though everybody said it was impossible) and it worked great(until they put out an update that made all the pings in the 1000s). Although lower latency would have worked better it was still playable. Xbox Live to me seems a lot more forgiving to high latency than most PC games.

Lol...But actually people play Xbox Live on ISDN all the time which is only 128k/128k. But for 5 bucks a month and twice the speed I would definently go for the 6 lol.

I am curious to see the ping times of Hughesnet. As you all may no Wildblue's pings are in the craper. I am hoping that they will straighten this mess out and I can stay with them, but if they don't do something soon I am going to haft to find something else. I used to game on Xbox Live, and even those pesky FPS worked!!! They were not perfect, but they worked and was highly enjoyable. But with the pings below nothing works. How steady are your pings? Could somebody maybe post a lengthy ping test? TY for any and all help. Pinging yahoo.com [66.94.234.13] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1182ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1227ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1704ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1141ms TTL=48 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=2415ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1173ms TTL=48 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1181ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=2399ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1170ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1140ms TTL=47 Ping statistics for 66.94.234.13: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1140ms, Maximum = 2415ms, Average = 1473ms

Unfortunately I feel your pain. I am on the same satellite just I am with Wildblue and not Xplorenet. Personally I think I would rather be on Xplorenet. Wildblue has to have the worst traffic shaping system on the continent. Ping times are horrendous. Skype will not even log in. Vonage or any other VOIP provider does not work. Here is what our pings look like(these are better than usual, usually averages in the 1600s): Pinging yahoo.com [66.94.234.13] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1187ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1477ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1686ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1158ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1361ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1185ms TTL=46 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1171ms TTL=48 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1318ms TTL=47 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1237ms TTL=48 Reply from 66.94.234.13: bytes=32 time=1160ms TTL=47 Ping statistics for 66.94.234.13: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1158ms, Maximum = 1686ms, Average = 1294ms