Please read this everyone now for cod mw2019

[supafastguy]

19 hours ago, Zippy said:

Ha ha your right there isn't many of us left! And don't even get me started about the aim in that game!! Yikes!! One game the aim is decent the next its like a rubber band!! What really gets me is when I see a player with an accuracy of 23% but manages to get 23 kills.. And here I sit where im at 61% and hardly drop a player! I do believe something did happen with H5 that couldn't fully be fixed. Very likely something in the netcode. I do know MS did develop teredo so both IPv6 and IPv4 could work together and port 3544 is the port used for that protocol. Could you share how currently you have yours setup? Like what ports and what port numbers your using for source and destination? Id really appreciate it if you can!. Im not sure how much difference there is from the R1 to the XR500.. I have the XR500. I just want to compare what your doing to what im doing! Thanks supafastguy! 

Believe me I know your pain more than anyone lol but luckily I have both the R1 and the XR500. My experience has been better with the R1 specifically because I can check what port is being used. I tried using the XR500 after seeing only ports 30000, 30001, 30003 and 30004 on the server side from my R1.

What worked relatively well on my XR500 was using source/destination 3544 UDP, source/destination 3074 TCP/UDP, source/destination 30000-60000 UDP. I also noticed that while my shots had no problems registering, I did still struggle to consistently land headshots. But the game definitely felt much smoother than it usually does.

I also tried doing just 30000-30004 and either the game changed ports to one I haven't seen or the xr500 didn't pick it up. Again, it could be an H5 thing but who knows with this game.

It's a shame that H5 had so many issues with aiming and shot reg, because in my opinion its the best of all the Halo's in terms of multiplayer when it plays the way it should. And I'm from the CE era.

[Zippy]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 3:00 PM, supafastguy said:

Believe me I know your pain more than anyone lol but luckily I have both the R1 and the XR500. My experience has been better with the R1 specifically because I can check what port is being used. I tried using the XR500 after seeing only ports 30000, 30001, 30003 and 30004 on the server side from my R1.

What worked relatively well on my XR500 was using source/destination 3544 UDP, source/destination 3074 TCP/UDP, source/destination 30000-60000 UDP. I also noticed that while my shots had no problems registering, I did still struggle to consistently land headshots. But the game definitely felt much smoother than it usually does.

I also tried doing just 30000-30004 and either the game changed ports to one I haven't seen or the xr500 didn't pick it up. Again, it could be an H5 thing but who knows with this game.

It's a shame that H5 had so many issues with aiming and shot reg, because in my opinion its the best of all the Halo's in terms of multiplayer when it plays the way it should. And I'm from the CE era.

Hey supafastguy.. Lets just say we share that pain about H5.. And so many other players alike..  I do feel that H5s multiplayer could have been one of the best.. But just as you stated if it played the way it was suppose to on a more consistent basis then yes it would be amazing.. If you look at H5 from the start that is where the game had so many issues.. Not to mention a very big lack of content and what was given out at release seemed rushed out the door before it was even ready itself.. Its like buying a new car with wet paint yet..lol.. H5s low population is from this one big issue we have talked about here.. Ive gamed for years and have never seen a game have issues like H5 has.. I could compile a list of just the major issues and still would forget something.. Such s shame too because if the game played well or more consistent for players alike it would still be the go to game.. No doubt hands down!! 

  Now back to these prioritizing ports! A little update! There is no doubt with your help and others from here my game play is much better.. I think we are on the correct track! I still feel we are likely missing one or two more critical ports but are on the right track!  In order to get H5 to work more correctly is by selecting ports for the game ourselves.. Trial and error is our only option really.. But for the first time in along time H5 played very well for me last night.. Just so im understanding you correctly are you using the R1 when playing H5 over the XR500.? Are there any other ports that you see that seem to have a pattern? Id download wireshark and run the game through that myself and see what I can figure out but my XR500 is very shaky in the knees right now and don't want to disturb it to much either.. For some odd reason this router may go down as bad as H5!! LOL..  If there is anything else you care to share by all means do! If you have a screen shot of ports you see in a game or two let me know! I maybe able to see if certain ports play a more vital roll then what we are currently using. Also let me know what playlist your playing.. Im curious to see if ports differ between playlist types.. I may end up getting an R1 if this XR500 continues the path its on..  For some reason I think I made a big mistake buying this over the R1!!  Btw if you want to play a few games add me.. ZippySkippy is my gamer tag.. Heck we can at least give Quickplay a test to see how the game plays when we are both partied up!.. Again thanks!! 

[RL317]

On 1/4/2019 at 9:22 PM, Zippy said:

Id be curious on what you find. One thing I did like about my ASUS router is you could prioritize ports individually similar to what we have with Netduma but ASUS also would give you options on how high to prioritize a port and how much data you wanted to allow it to send or receive.. Up to 1500 kbps per port.. Very cool feature if one knows what ports to plug in there.. One thing I did notice when playing H5 with my ASUS hooked up I had a lot of TCP ports with 443 in there and only usually one or two UDP ports per game.. Its been awhile since ive had my ASUS hooked up but I may just hook it up and see what ports it logs and see if there is a pattern.. With Wireshark does it give you info on how much data a specific port is receiving? Thanks and keep tinkering! 

Apologies for the delay in replying. My Wireshark capture was saved on my old laptop, and I simply forgot to fish it out and load it up 😂

 

I've been skimming through and the majority of the 7246 packets from this capture showed UDP (86%) with some TCP (13%) and the rest was DNS, ICMP, DHCP and TLS. Most UDP involved 3074 on one end (40040 on the other), but some UDP traffic was 3074 to 3074 - this was between players. I've been looking up some of these IPs from the single game I captured and I've seen results from ISPs (in fact the two I found were American and Omani - NICE matchmaking). Then there was TCP 3074 (me) to 64755 (Demonware in Ireland - the backend servers). 

 

The rest of it was involved TCP 443, and a few Google searches show IPs registered to Amazon AWS and Akamai, which I think has something to do with PSN. There were too many ports in communication with 443 to mention (often 60000-65535), and 443 appeared both on my end and the server end depending on what I was communicating with. 

 

Interestingly I see a lot of large packets here. TCP 3074 sent me a lot of 1494 byte packets while TCP 443 from many different sources sent me 1506 byte packets (WTF?). The largest game packets (over UDP 3074), both to and from me, were 1322 bytes. I guess that counters the claim that game packets are always tiny lol

 

What's sad about checking all this is I've been doing my own testing with custom single hyper lane rules and I'd already been prioritising 3074 (UDP alone and then both) as well as 443, because I found out about the latter from a couple of people here on the forum. I had everything else set up optimally (70/70 QoS), small filter radius to guarantee games at either 7ms or 13ms, and games played like shit as usual. I had two random CoD games with randomly superb hit detection, and nothing was out of the ordinary in those games. My setup was the same, the server was the same... and the next game it would go back to awful again. 

 

I also used the network monitor to find the ports in use on the server end. When I connected to online services, many would pop up at once like this:

... yet when I spawned into a game, only 3074 and one other port (on the server end) would show up:

So I tried adding just UDP 3074 both and UDP 37350 both to the hyper lane, but it made no difference LOL

 

Today I got sick of seeing disgusting lag on a flat 7ms to my local server (according to the R1), and I found out that Battlefield games have different latency detection methods: the scoreboard shows ping results, and the network graph shows UDP latency for your game traffic or, in other words, your true game latency. I installed BF4, found a local empty server (based in Amsterdam) and pinged it on the geofilter. I got a stable 14ms that moved about 0.3ms in either direction. I spawned into the server on BF4, opened up the network graph and got nothing like what the R1 showed. While the R1 stayed at 14ms pretty much dead on, the in game latency fluctuated between 6 and 41ms, and spikes in game were never matched by spikes on the geofilter. Must be why I'm seeing random hundreds of milliseconds of delays on hitmarkers in CoD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ HaPpY dAyS 

[supafastguy]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:39 PM, Zippy said:

Hey supafastguy.. Lets just say we share that pain about H5.. And so many other players alike..  I do feel that H5s multiplayer could have been one of the best.. But just as you stated if it played the way it was suppose to on a more consistent basis then yes it would be amazing.. If you look at H5 from the start that is where the game had so many issues.. Not to mention a very big lack of content and what was given out at release seemed rushed out the door before it was even ready itself.. Its like buying a new car with wet paint yet..lol.. H5s low population is from this one big issue we have talked about here.. Ive gamed for years and have never seen a game have issues like H5 has.. I could compile a list of just the major issues and still would forget something.. Such s shame too because if the game played well or more consistent for players alike it would still be the go to game.. No doubt hands down!! 

  Now back to these prioritizing ports! A little update! There is no doubt with your help and others from here my game play is much better.. I think we are on the correct track! I still feel we are likely missing one or two more critical ports but are on the right track!  In order to get H5 to work more correctly is by selecting ports for the game ourselves.. Trial and error is our only option really.. But for the first time in along time H5 played very well for me last night.. Just so im understanding you correctly are you using the R1 when playing H5 over the XR500.? Are there any other ports that you see that seem to have a pattern? Id download wireshark and run the game through that myself and see what I can figure out but my XR500 is very shaky in the knees right now and don't want to disturb it to much either.. For some odd reason this router may go down as bad as H5!! LOL..  If there is anything else you care to share by all means do! If you have a screen shot of ports you see in a game or two let me know! I maybe able to see if certain ports play a more vital roll then what we are currently using. Also let me know what playlist your playing.. Im curious to see if ports differ between playlist types.. I may end up getting an R1 if this XR500 continues the path its on..  For some reason I think I made a big mistake buying this over the R1!!  Btw if you want to play a few games add me.. ZippySkippy is my gamer tag.. Heck we can at least give Quickplay a test to see how the game plays when we are both partied up!.. Again thanks!! 

Completely agree with everything you said regarding H5 Zippy.

Also I'm mostly using the R1. I've dabbled here and there with the XR500 when I'm feeling to lazy to hook up the R1. I definitely notice when using the R1 that gameplay seems more consistent. Also you can mostly tell how your game is going to play out by the smoothness and contrast of the spartan intro scene of every match. If it seems like you're getting rougher animations(or sometimes not even showing the opening animation) of the spartans and the game looks washed out with high in-game contrast I've noticed the game almost always plays terribly for me.

On my XR500

Since prioritizing UDP ports 30000-60000, intro's and contrast are a non-issue. I'm still having issues with the consistency of aiming and landing headshots but it does feel much better just not 100%. I've only had the "windmill aim" issue once luckily. In the 3 years I've combed the internet looking for an answer to fix these two specific issues, I've found nothing that helps permanently. And I'm talking about WHOLE games where it seems like 343 flipped a switch on my game and no matter where I land my shots, it'll always be a body shot. If it were once or twice a game, I can live with that.

 

On my R1

I prioritize the specific UDP ports - 30000, 30001, 30002, 30003, and 30004. It seems to do a much better job than the XR500 when I specifically choose the ports. I don't think the XR500 works at all when I specifically choose the ports. My aiming feels GREAT for the most part, but again I'm still having issues with headshot reg. My R1 only shows one port being used per game though, here's an example:

I know it says "all devices" but I only have my PC and my xbox hooked up with wifi turned off. This data was only for my xbox since I wasn't using my PC at the time.

 

General
For both routers I changed my DNS servers. I use primary 1.1.1.1 and secondary 1.0.0.1(Cloudflare). I have upnp turned on, and removed any manual port forwards/triggers. I also turned off wifi on both so I could better gauge what works and what doesn't. IPv6 is also turned off. Also my ISP is Spectrum if that helps. I'm actually worried about having them too because they were recently in a lawsuit with Riot games and got kicked out of the state of New York for purposefully rerouting gaming traffic to increase latency, cause dropped packets etc so they could extort money from the devs/publishers. Makes me wonder if they're doing the same for MS/Sony/Nintendo.

 

I also added you on xbl - supafastguy. We should def run some games together soon and see what we can come up with!!

^not sure why that popped up twice lol I can't remove it either.

[RL317]

I guess hyper lane can't help my broken internet even if I've got low stable pings lmao https://youtu.be/a9RdMILcVKg

 

Edit: why would anyone hit dislike but not say anything? All I've tried to do on this thread is help people. Weirdo 🐒

[GHOST-1-EC]

3 hours ago, lllRL said:

I guess hyper lane can't help my broken internet even if I've got low stable pings lmao https://youtu.be/a9RdMILcVKg

The setup has help me in pubs but playing in BO4 custom lobbies is a whole other headache all together.

I go from low ping pub gameplay to very high ping, laggy as ever gameplay in custom lobbies regardless of whether one of my team mates are the host or the opposition team hosts.

Take into account everyone i play with or against live within the geo filter range i have up for pubs.

I've actually withdrawn my team from a local online BO4 league becos its pointless to even try and compete with a 120-200ms ping.

Anyone else tried custom lobby gameplay on a player host?

[RL317]

2 hours ago, GHOST-1-EC said:

The setup has help me in pubs but playing in BO4 custom lobbies is a whole other headache all together.

I go from low ping pub gameplay to very high ping, laggy as ever gameplay in custom lobbies regardless of whether one of my team mates are the host or the opposition team hosts.

Take into account everyone i play with or against live within the geo filter range i have up for pubs.

I've actually withdrawn my team from a local online BO4 league becos its pointless to even try and compete with a 120-200ms ping.

Anyone else tried custom lobby gameplay on a player host?

All I know is I lag and teleport on my own custom game host vs bots LMAO

[GHOST-1-EC]

1 hour ago, lllRL said:

All I know is I lag and teleport on my own custom game host vs bots LMAO

Dang thats ruff......i havnt had it that bad.

I honestly feel that something is still a miss........most guys are having amazing ping figures and stability on the lines which is expected as they are on quality connections but somehow this does not translate over to BO4 in its totality.

I can put any other game on and have literally no issues playing against guys in my geofilter range but BO4 is a different story.

Could this be dumaos and bo4 networking conflict?

[Netduma Fraser]

I doubt there is any conflict going on. Whenever there is a new CoD people mention how bad the connection is and it gradually gets better with time as they tweak it 

[Zippy]

9 hours ago, lllRL said:

I guess hyper lane can't help my broken internet even if I've got low stable pings lmao https://youtu.be/a9RdMILcVKg

 

Edit: why would anyone hit dislike but not say anything? All I've tried to do on this thread is help people. Weirdo 🐒

IIIRL You just keep posting regardless if someone hit dislike... If it wasn't for you I myself wouldn't have started to dig into this type of stuff.. Ive learned a lot as well from you and others on this thread.. Heck I find this interesting!! And my game play has gotten better! I still feel im missing something yet but then again it likely could be the game itself.. One thing I did notice is once I started to prioritize or fine tune specific ports my ping stabilized.. Thanks again for all your help!!

[Zippy]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 1:41 PM, lllRL said:

Apologies for the delay in replying. My Wireshark capture was saved on my old laptop, and I simply forgot to fish it out and load it up 😂

 

I've been skimming through and the majority of the 7246 packets from this capture showed UDP (86%) with some TCP (13%) and the rest was DNS, ICMP, DHCP and TLS. Most UDP involved 3074 on one end (40040 on the other), but some UDP traffic was 3074 to 3074 - this was between players. I've been looking up some of these IPs from the single game I captured and I've seen results from ISPs (in fact the two I found were American and Omani - NICE matchmaking). Then there was TCP 3074 (me) to 64755 (Demonware in Ireland - the backend servers). 

 

The rest of it was involved TCP 443, and a few Google searches show IPs registered to Amazon AWS and Akamai, which I think has something to do with PSN. There were too many ports in communication with 443 to mention (often 60000-65535), and 443 appeared both on my end and the server end depending on what I was communicating with. 

 

Interestingly I see a lot of large packets here. TCP 3074 sent me a lot of 1494 byte packets while TCP 443 from many different sources sent me 1506 byte packets (WTF?). The largest game packets (over UDP 3074), both to and from me, were 1322 bytes. I guess that counters the claim that game packets are always tiny lol

 

What's sad about checking all this is I've been doing my own testing with custom single hyper lane rules and I'd already been prioritising 3074 (UDP alone and then both) as well as 443, because I found out about the latter from a couple of people here on the forum. I had everything else set up optimally (70/70 QoS), small filter radius to guarantee games at either 7ms or 13ms, and games played like shit as usual. I had two random CoD games with randomly superb hit detection, and nothing was out of the ordinary in those games. My setup was the same, the server was the same... and the next game it would go back to awful again. 

 

I also used the network monitor to find the ports in use on the server end. When I connected to online services, many would pop up at once like this:

... yet when I spawned into a game, only 3074 and one other port (on the server end) would show up:

So I tried adding just UDP 3074 both and UDP 37350 both to the hyper lane, but it made no difference LOL

 

Today I got sick of seeing disgusting lag on a flat 7ms to my local server (according to the R1), and I found out that Battlefield games have different latency detection methods: the scoreboard shows ping results, and the network graph shows UDP latency for your game traffic or, in other words, your true game latency. I installed BF4, found a local empty server (based in Amsterdam) and pinged it on the geofilter. I got a stable 14ms that moved about 0.3ms in either direction. I spawned into the server on BF4, opened up the network graph and got nothing like what the R1 showed. While the R1 stayed at 14ms pretty much dead on, the in game latency fluctuated between 6 and 41ms, and spikes in game were never matched by spikes on the geofilter. Must be why I'm seeing random hundreds of milliseconds of delays on hitmarkers in CoD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ HaPpY dAyS 

That's very interesting.. I always wondered on my XR500 how accurate these ping results were.. They sure didn't feel right to the ping shown.. But if your actually getting that much fluctuation and spikes that will likely be the cause of poor game play.. Ive always been told a steady ping is key.. In the game I play whatever latency detection they use I feel is far to strict! Heck if you fart while playing that game it likely would show up as a spike!! LOL.. 

[Zippy]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 3:13 PM, supafastguy said:

Completely agree with everything you said regarding H5 Zippy.

Also I'm mostly using the R1. I've dabbled here and there with the XR500 when I'm feeling to lazy to hook up the R1. I definitely notice when using the R1 that gameplay seems more consistent. Also you can mostly tell how your game is going to play out by the smoothness and contrast of the spartan intro scene of every match. If it seems like you're getting rougher animations(or sometimes not even showing the opening animation) of the spartans and the game looks washed out with high in-game contrast I've noticed the game almost always plays terribly for me.

On my XR500

Since prioritizing UDP ports 30000-60000, intro's and contrast are a non-issue. I'm still having issues with the consistency of aiming and landing headshots but it does feel much better just not 100%. I've only had the "windmill aim" issue once luckily. In the 3 years I've combed the internet looking for an answer to fix these two specific issues, I've found nothing that helps permanently. And I'm talking about WHOLE games where it seems like 343 flipped a switch on my game and no matter where I land my shots, it'll always be a body shot. If it were once or twice a game, I can live with that.

 

On my R1

I prioritize the specific UDP ports - 30000, 30001, 30002, 30003, and 30004. It seems to do a much better job than the XR500 when I specifically choose the ports. I don't think the XR500 works at all when I specifically choose the ports. My aiming feels GREAT for the most part, but again I'm still having issues with headshot reg. My R1 only shows one port being used per game though, here's an example:

I know it says "all devices" but I only have my PC and my xbox hooked up with wifi turned off. This data was only for my xbox since I wasn't using my PC at the time.

 

General
For both routers I changed my DNS servers. I use primary 1.1.1.1 and secondary 1.0.0.1(Cloudflare). I have upnp turned on, and removed any manual port forwards/triggers. I also turned off wifi on both so I could better gauge what works and what doesn't. IPv6 is also turned off. Also my ISP is Spectrum if that helps. I'm actually worried about having them too because they were recently in a lawsuit with Riot games and got kicked out of the state of New York for purposefully rerouting gaming traffic to increase latency, cause dropped packets etc so they could extort money from the devs/publishers. Makes me wonder if they're doing the same for MS/Sony/Nintendo.

 

I also added you on xbl - supafastguy. We should def run some games together soon and see what we can come up with!!

 

^not sure why that popped up twice lol I can't remove it either.

Thanks for sharing..  My ISP is also Spectrum.. Which is the new name for the old Charter ISP.. They have dropped Charter and now use Spectrum as there main name.. Charter really has had a bad reputation.. Do you happen to know if your running on DOCSIS 3.1? Id say Spectrum is an average type ISP.. Not horrible but not great.. But I do know they are working hard on converting to full fiber over time.. They are getting there but it is not cheap to run full fiber.. I would say that all there nodes are at least fiber now and even some better fiber at curb. There focus from here moving forward will be more geared to internet then cable programing.. So we should see improvement..  The biggest problem with using coax cable is the ability for something to go wrong.. For example a simple bad connector to a squirrel chewing on a main line.. Once anything happens to the cable it makes it very acceptable for leaks and interference. Which can effect everyone on the same node.. And that is very troubling because this happens almost nonstop.. Specially where im from.. 

 I will add that port arrangement as you did.. Thanks for sharing! So do you mainly only see one udp port used for each game? And do they always seem to be 30000-30004?  As far as my XR500 id say it kind of works.. Put it this way hands down I should have bought the R1..I don't think that port prior. is fully working on my router.. Ive had so many weird issues with this thing that I would not recommend it to any of my friends.. And if the next firmware that comes out doesn't improve anything im guessing my next move will be an R1.. And honestly I have an ASUS that does just about everything except geo filtering.. what I like about my ASUS router is that it tells me what port the game is using like the R1 does but it also tells me the amount of data each port is using.. That way one can target that port in prioritization.. Cool stuff there! 

Thanks again supafastguy!

[kinel]

Please keep voting still

[kinel]

Again please keep voting

Thank you to all that voted

[Zippy]

Just to give this another bump but also give some more info on this.. As I have had this XR500 for about four months now ive learned a lot about this port prioritization.. With the XR500 putting trust in this little red light seems to be very inconsistent.. I know DumaOS has made this easy for us by having all the ports built in so all we have to do is click on DumaOS classified games and are good to go.. But to keep everyone honest and make trouble shooting a bit easier I think what needs to be in future builds is when this little red light comes on it should also list the port numbers that are being prioritized.. And what ones are UDP and TCP for that matter.. That way we can use this info to make sure everything is correct and working as it should. Currently im finding discrepancies in the current system.. Other routers do currently use a system like this already and have been for sometime. So I think this would make a good addition to what is already there and can give us some good details on what exactly is going on then just this little red light.. Don't get me wrong its nice to have one click and let DumaOS take care of the rest.. But it also makes it very difficult to verify anything when it comes to this without seeing whats actually taking place..  I think with just the amount of people that have currently voted should give more then enough insight to see there is interest in these type of features. Granted this maybe not exactly what the Op is suggesting word for word but its along those lines..  What I find confusing is it sounds like the R1 at one time had similar features as this..But currently not anymore.. Which really makes me scratch my head as to why.. Thanks!

Zippy.

[Netduma Fraser]

Thanks for your use case/ideas zippy!

[Zippy]

2 hours ago, Netduma Fraser said:

Thanks for your use case/ideas zippy!

Your welcome Fraser! Think of this more like a tool that could be used to help diagnose things or help dial things in even more precise. And at the very least be good useful info just for the knowing.  I really do like what you guys have done though for the gamer.. Nice job!  

Zippy.

[Netduma Jack]

10 hours ago, Zippy said:

Your welcome Fraser! Think of this more like a tool that could be used to help diagnose things or help dial things in even more precise. And at the very least be good useful info just for the knowing.  I really do like what you guys have done though for the gamer.. Nice job!  

Zippy.

Just took a look at your use case; bloody interesting Zippy, thank you so much for sharing that. We're focused on giving you guys more and more information, and over time more tools (which is a little trickier to do). I reckon this would be a brilliant feature

[plb]

Good idea and it would be nice to have the possibility to untick some ports to not prioritize them anymore 

[Netduma Jack]

15 hours ago, plb said:

Good idea and it would be nice to have the possibility to untick some ports to not prioritize them anymore 

Also a great idea. Man I wish we could just get everything done this second. It'll take some time, but there will be a ton of cool features coming this year

[RedBull2k]

simply use the data from geo filter to find server,  then strip out the data,  to get sport-dport apply that to hyper lane, and then when no longer detected remove. and repeat.

 

[Zippy]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 5:28 AM, Netduma Jack said:

Just took a look at your use case; bloody interesting Zippy, thank you so much for sharing that. We're focused on giving you guys more and more information, and over time more tools (which is a little trickier to do). I reckon this would be a brilliant feature

 Thanks Jack for the kind words! I think something like this would become a very useful tool. We could even take this a bit further and not only give what ports are being used and there protocol UDP/TCP but we could also show how much data each port is sending and receiving. This would come in really handy to target a port because we likely know when playing a game the port that is transferring a lot of data is likely the key port. And we could prioritize that port by giving it the highest priority over all others or even have a method of prioritizing based on something like this.. Highest, high, medium, lowest.. This type of feature would become a dominating tool I feel. And the reasoning behind my idea is it would give the player/user more control of exactly what is going on. Not to mention what one player is showing for a high priority port number may not be the same port number another player might show.. So this would really help in that situation which believe it or not is very common.. Also say if the developer of a game does some changing on there end where a high priority port number that we were more commonly use to seeing no longer is the common port. Say for whatever reason they use to use port 34000 but all of a sudden we see a new port number pop in that is 43000. So we would catch this because of this feature and make the needed adjustments.. Anytime we can customize our ports by giving them the proper prioritization will result in the most optimum performance.. Which really is what we are all looking for.. To get the edge in a particular game..  Here is just an example of what this would look like..

UDP 30001- 280kbps...Highest

TCP 443 - 20kbps...Lowest

UDP 3074 - 45kbps..High

Granted this is just an example and there would likely be more ports but this is just to give you an idea of what it would look like.. The Highest to Lowest feature could be just a drop down box for each port and we could prioritize it as needed based on what a particular port is doing.. And really we likely only really need to prioritize one or two ports. The rest would be just general type traffic not critical to in game performance.. If there is anyone that could put something like this together its you guys over there at NetDuma!  Im sure you guys could put a good twist on this and make it as user friendly as need be.. But it is fairly straight forward yet can become a dominating feature..  Thanks again!

Zippy.

 

 

[kinel]

Its been a while bump

[Bert]

I read back through the earier discussion.

 

I was testing with wireshark myself this week and noticed that game traffic didn't seem to utilize port 3074 UDP anymore in COD MW. So I switched to the generic setting for now.

[Zippy]

17 hours ago, kinel said:

Its been a while bump

kinel, I love your dedication to this! 👍 Good job!

Zippy