Lower your ping with "Leatrix Latency Fix"



  • Hello everyone. I would like to show you some usefull trick that makes your ping lower.

    http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/i … cyFix.html

    This thing actually was made by World of Warcraft player but it works in every internet game.

    The descriptions says:

    "What does it do?

    Leatrix Latency Fix will reduce your online gaming latency (ping) significantly by increasing the frequency of TCP acknowledgements sent to the game server. For the technically minded, this is a program which will modify TCPAckFrequency.

    You will see reduced latency in many online games including World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3, Star Wars, Rift, Aion, Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, and more."

    Worked for me, worked for many of my friends so also its going to work for you.



  • The new speed hack detection (that needs a bit more loving) works by detecting an increased flood of position update packets. I don’t know if “TCP acknowledgements” will trigger this or not.

    It is recommended not to use this.



  • I was using latency fix in another games before chivarly even exist. And this is not speed hack. Leatrix latency fix was downloaded 2,678,615 times by people that playing not only chivarly but world of warcraft, league of legends, counter strike etc. The high number of downloads says this thing really works.



  • He’s not saying this is a speedhack, but the speed hack detection in the game may mistake this “fix” for a speedhack - thus getting you banned (?) I don’t really know what happens if you get “caught”.



  • It wont becouse its change windows registry options that have nothing to do with game. I playing chivarly from the begining and i didnt get banned.

    Edit: Just read peoples comments on
    http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/i … cyFix.html



  • No, this is perfectly fine. It doesn’t have any effect on your position update packets, or any other packets.

    Basically, it changes how often the client (you) says “I’m still here!” to the server (which has nothing to do with the game itself). If it’s done excessively, it can slow down communication between the client and server. This just makes it do it less often, so it’s not done quite so excessively.



  • @johnnywalker77777:

    Leatrix Latency Fix will reduce your online gaming latency (ping) significantly by increasing the frequency of TCP acknowledgements sent to the game server.

    @Unison:

    This just makes it do it less often, so it’s not done quite so excessively.

    Anyways, I am not sure if the new speedhack detection is coded to check for ANY packets or just a specific kind. So I am saying to be careful and it is not recommended to use this. As I said before, the speed hack detection needs some more loving and should get it for the next hotfix.



  • In my experience people with inexplicably low pings thanks to these sort of “fixes” are just as, if not more glitchy than people with pings of 500 or more.

    I often have to compensate for an opponents attack reach and timings based on their latency reading on the scoreboard. This not only conceals the fact, it makes it worse to everyone who isn’t you.



  • @ReMixx:

    @johnnywalker77777:

    Leatrix Latency Fix will reduce your online gaming latency (ping) significantly by increasing the frequency of TCP acknowledgements sent to the game server.

    @Unison:

    This just makes it do it less often, so it’s not done quite so excessively.

    Anyways, I am not sure if the new speedhack detection is coded to check for ANY packets or just a specific kind. So I am saying to be careful and it is not recommended to use this. As I said before, the speed hack detection needs some more loving and should get it for the next hotfix.

    As far as I’m aware, tcp acks are invisible to the person receiving the packets, so unless torn banner have done something particularly hilarious (read: Unlikely but i could always be wrong) I suspect this won’t trigger the speedhack detection

    A lot of people will be thinking this drastically reduces their ping, but ill give a quick summary of why it shouldn’t (if the torn banner devs did their job right)

    TCP stands for transmission control protocol - basically, it makes sure your packets get to their destination - this involves transmitting an acknowledgement (Hey, i got your shit!) back to the client, so the client will send more packets. Or thereabouts

    The alternative is UDP (acronym not relevant) - there are no guarantees that these will get to their destination, and no ack is sent from the destination to the source - as such, you have no idea if they made it. The TCP ack modification will not affect this (Clarification: this is what the latency fix modifies)

    TCP incurs an overhead because it has to make sure packets get there, and UDP is faster (but potentially you lose packets). Now, in a video game where you want to send positioning information as fast as possible, and you don’t mind too much if you lose it, you pick UDP because you can spam a lot of information down the pipe with less overhead

    Now, the reason why this fix is so popular is because WoW uses TCP to transmit information, so for WoW it will definitely help. For chivalry, which I would hope uses UDP to transmit information (non critical information like positioning, and attacks etc, at least), this won’t make the slightest bit of difference. If the ping feature of chivalry is sent using TCP packets, you might erroneously think your latency is lowered (afterall, if you send a few TCP packets, the increased ack frequency might lower their latency), but UDP is not affected by this

    World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3, Star Wars, Rift, Aion, Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, and more.

    The games the TCP fix fixes are all MMOs, and i suspect that these all use TCP to transmit information (Eg I’m performing an attack, i’ve moved over here etc). Most fps’s don’t (and i would be interested to see any that do, frankly)

    Edit:

    Just realised this is a bit of a bump, but people tend to stumble across these things and use them in the hope they’ll improve their online performance, when in reality it doesn’t do anything



  • ^
    I would expect MMORPGS would use TCP but your avg FPS game UDP.

    Edit - translation

    @johnnywalker77777:

    Worked for me, worked for many of my friends so also its going to work for you.

    I would expect it not to help at all.



  • @20k:

    For chivalry, which I would hope uses UDP to transmit information (non critical information like positioning, and attacks etc, at least), this won’t make the slightest bit of difference. If the ping feature of chivalry is sent using TCP packets, you might erroneously think your latency is lowered (afterall, if you send a few TCP packets, the increased ack frequency might lower their latency), but UDP is not affected by this

    I just checked: Chivalry uses UDP for every communication during a game (just use the Network tab of the Resource Monitor of Win7, you’ll see UDK.exe using only UDP protocol). As it should be. :)



  • @Galandil:

    @20k:

    For chivalry, which I would hope uses UDP to transmit information (non critical information like positioning, and attacks etc, at least), this won’t make the slightest bit of difference. If the ping feature of chivalry is sent using TCP packets, you might erroneously think your latency is lowered (afterall, if you send a few TCP packets, the increased ack frequency might lower their latency), but UDP is not affected by this

    I just checked: Chivalry uses UDP for every communication during a game (just use the Network tab of the Resource Monitor of Win7, you’ll see UDK.exe using only UDP protocol). As it should be. :)

    Thanks for checking :) So for anyone reading this, you can be pretty sure this won’t work. Its not even that its a long shot, but it applies to a different piece of technology than chivlary uses :)



  • @20k:

    @Galandil:

    @20k:

    For chivalry, which I would hope uses UDP to transmit information (non critical information like positioning, and attacks etc, at least), this won’t make the slightest bit of difference. If the ping feature of chivalry is sent using TCP packets, you might erroneously think your latency is lowered (afterall, if you send a few TCP packets, the increased ack frequency might lower their latency), but UDP is not affected by this

    I just checked: Chivalry uses UDP for every communication during a game (just use the Network tab of the Resource Monitor of Win7, you’ll see UDK.exe using only UDP protocol). As it should be. :)

    Thanks for checking :) So for anyone reading this, you can be pretty sure this won’t work. Its not even that its a long shot, but it applies to a different piece of technology than chivlary uses :)

    So, isn’t it maybe possible to get this working with UDP? Seeing i pretty much can’t play anymore because the servers are so messed up with latency and such, and this is the only game where i have this issue!

    I also found this tutorial that enables Compound TCP,

    which increases the TCP window much quicker than the traditional TCP algorithms allow for. This means that when a sudden burst of larger packets comes in, or goes out, Windows adjusts its settings faster than normal to compensate for it, allow for faster data transfer on broadband connections and lower latency while gaming.

    http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.ph … opic=26628



  • @Necramonium:

    So, isn’t it maybe possible to get this working with UDP?

    If you can, patent it and sell it.



  • No, this solution can never work with UDP

    TCP requires an “ack” to be sent after a packet reaches its destination - in UDP, this never happens. This is why UDP is better for videogames than TCP, and also why any fix that works specifically for TCP (by adjusting ack frequencies, or compounds frames etc) can’t work for UDP.

    They are simply two entirely different things I’m afraid



  • Just wanted to say thanks to 20k for taking the time to write up a detailed explanation! It was very helpful for me.


Log in to reply