What Dog Pants has broken today:

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 7:25

I'm going to fucking sticky this, because at the moment I've got a new drama every day.

Today it's my headset. I've got a new set of Speed-Link Medusa 5.1 Mobile USBs. The sound is lovely, but I can't get windows to pick up the mic. I've checked the primary audio device, I've checked the volume settings, I've toggled the windows gain, I've disabled my (other) sound card, I've reinstalled the drivers, I've reinstalled drivers off the intercock, I've checked the tech support page and read the manual. I can hear the mic output through the headset if I turn the mic output volume up and put the gain on, so the mic works. I run the hardware test thing in windows and when you get the bit where you speak into the mic to set the output volume, there's nothing. Obviously this means nothing in TS either, which is why I got no futurebeef game last night.

I'm going to try it on my laptop when I get home at lunch time to see if it's a conflict with my desktop, and I'll email their tech support (although other forums show that they're not very helpful), but if I can't get it to work I'm sending the fucker back and I don't want to do that.

Somebody please help (again)

eion · Post by **eion** » April 13th, 2007, 7:35

Go into the Sounds and Audio Devices Control Panel thingy and make sure that under the Audio tab, the default device for sound recording is set to the headset. Then go to the Voice tab and do the same.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 11:52

Yep, done that I'm afraid.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » April 13th, 2007, 11:55

turn it off and on again?

also consider plugging into a different usb hole.

and make sure the mic is select in the input in the usb soundard dealy.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 12:03

Done the top two. The last one, well I'm not entirely sure what or where the sound card is, but I've been in the little (very little) config program and selected it as the input there.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » April 13th, 2007, 12:06

go through the advanced volume dobber in the sounds control panel.

also, get screenshots of every page in that control panel and the volume dobber.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 12:51

Aha! Fixed it by accident. Turns out I just needed to use the Windows default drivers - the ones supplied are shite it seems. Found out by trying it on my laptop.

Cheers anyway guys. Now I've got to find out why my laptop won't connect to the internet through my new switch. Here's hoping I can fix this one myself.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 19:48

Dog Pants wrote:Cheers anyway guys. Now I've got to find out why my laptop won't connect to the internet through my new switch. Here's hoping I can fix this one myself.

Yeah, no fucking chance. Why would I expect anything to work this week?

Intercock ---> Modem with router bits (but only one output) ----> switch ----> PC & laptop

Modem is set up as a DHCP server. Whenever both PCs are connected to the switch they get conflicting IP addresses. Anyone tell me something that's hopefull obvious and I just don't know? Fix three of my problems in a row and win 1000 5perm!

MrGreen · Post by **MrGreen** » April 13th, 2007, 20:07

Do they have static IPs?

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 13th, 2007, 20:15

No. I did try that with the desktop but because the modem was set up as a DHCP server it spacked out. I might give that a go again tomorrow because I've started drinking now

Post by **deject** » April 13th, 2007, 22:00

open a command prompt on the laptop and run "tracert 217.112.95.67". This should tell you at which point it's failing. The first hop or two will probably be your switch and/or your router and internet modem thingy.

Post by **FatherJack** » April 14th, 2007, 0:28

A few thoughts to try:

- with just the desktop switched on set the router's LAN address to 192.168.1.1 ( page 28 )
- turn ON the router's DHCP with starting IP 192.168.1.2, end as 192.168.1.254, lease time 60 sec ( page 29 )
- set desktop to obtain IP automatically
- at a command prompt type ipconfig /release (this will disconnect you from the internets)
- leaving the desktop on, start up the laptop
- set laptop to auto IP
- type ipconfig /release at it's command prompt

Okay, it's all broken now, lets see if it fixes itself. Wait two minutes.

- at desktop command prompt type ipconfig /renew - you should get 192.168.1.2 as an IP address
- at laptop, type ipconfig /renew - one of two things will happen:

1. It will get 192.168.1.3 as an IP address
2. It will get either none or 192.168.1.2 as its address

If 1 - it's fixed, yays! Stop reading and surf.

If 2 - poos!

You could try turning off DHCP and setting each PC's IP to 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 manually, as shown on page 30, but it's a long shot - I'm suspecting the router's DHCP service is only seeing the switch's MAC address and so only ever giving out a single IP - with no way I know of to view the router's DHCP table, it's hard to confirm. Without a very fancy switch that can either pass-through the computer's MAC addresses or create a VLAN for one of them, I think there needs to be another DHCP/NAT device between the router and the PCs to give out a new IP address. Then we're back to your previous problem of too many routers.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 14th, 2007, 8:51

FatherJack wrote:You could try turning off DHCP and setting each PC's IP to 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 manually, as shown on page 30, but it's a long shot - I'm suspecting the router's DHCP service is only seeing the switch's MAC address and so only ever giving out a single IP - with no way I know of to view the router's DHCP table, it's hard to confirm. Without a very fancy switch that can either pass-through the computer's MAC addresses or create a VLAN for one of them, I think there needs to be another DHCP/NAT device between the router and the PCs to give out a new IP address. Then we're back to your previous problem of too many routers.

This is what I'm thinking. Thing is, they're designed to work together so surely I shouldn't be having problems like this? Why the fuck do they make the modem a router and then only give it one output

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 14th, 2007, 13:55

Well, the result was a big number 2. Interestingly, the IP address assigned to the desktop was 86.145.191.231, which isn't within the range set by the router.

EDIT: Just found this on D-Link's FAQ:

• When I connect the DSL-320T modem to my hub or switch, I can still only get online with one computer. What's wrong? Is my hub or switch broken?

You can plug in multiple computers to DSL-320T through a switch or hub, however no more than one machine can connect to the internet. If you verify the IP address your machines are assigned, only one of them will get the public (internet) address. In order to share the internet connection, in addition to your DSL-320T and switch/hub, you will need a router, such as DI-624, which supports NAT (Network Address Translation).

Well what the fuck? Now I've got to buy yet another bit of kit? This is turning into a right farce.

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » April 14th, 2007, 14:10

I've never quite understood what Switches do.
Can you not turn off the Modem's router stuff and have a separate, multi-port Router handle the splitting?
I don't get why a modem would want a single port router, unless it's for NAT.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 14th, 2007, 15:27

I don't know why either. In hindsight I'd just get a modem/router, but it's been such a convoluted process of getting the wrong router, then getting a weird modem, then getting a switch that it's all buggered up. It's cost me more money than I'd have liked to have spent and it looks like I'm still going to have to fork out for something else, which might as well just be the router I should have got in the first place. That means I'm stuck with these bits though and nothing to do with them, and I hate that.

Post by **deject** » April 14th, 2007, 18:38

A Switch is supposed to be more intelligent than a normal hub because it creates a connection between only the devices which are communicating instead of broadcasting everything to every connected device. Hubs rely on network devices ignoring the broadcasts which aren't meant for them, and thus the full bandwidth of the network is used up concurrently (i.e.: is a file transfer is using up half the bandwidth it's gone for all connected devices). Since a switch only creates point to point connections, the uninvolved devices remain unaffected, so they can still use the full bandwidth.

TL;DR: Hubs are dumb, they just shout; Switches are like switchboard operators.

Post by **FatherJack** » April 14th, 2007, 20:34

Dog Pants wrote:I don't know why either. In hindsight I'd just get a modem/router, but it's been such a convoluted process of getting the wrong router, then getting a weird modem, then getting a switch that it's all buggered up. It's cost me more money than I'd have liked to have spent and it looks like I'm still going to have to fork out for something else, which might as well just be the router I should have got in the first place. That means I'm stuck with these bits though and nothing to do with them, and I hate that.

That DI-624 they suggest would plug in to your existing device and work that way, although it would cost about the same (£40) as an ADSL modem with built-in 4-port+wireless router. It might be more advantageous to have the separate devices to give you the flexibility to use a DSL ISP like Virgin in the future.

In either case you'd still be gaining wireless capability, should you ever get a Wii or something that needs that, and also NAT which gives you greater flexibility with security, enabling you to direct incoming requests to different IPs (including non-existant ones) based on port number, rather than just blocking selected ones.

You can still use the switch, as long as the NAT device is front of it, to maybe give yourself a convenient "network access point" for laptops, rather than having a trailing wire lying there when the laptop isn't connected.

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 14th, 2007, 21:00

This pleases me. The switch was only £15, so it's not a big deal. I just don't like having kit lying around when it could be sat on my computer in a nice stack, flashing.

So, could you explain that again please? You mean I'd connect modem>router>switch? I'm not sure I understand, especially the bit about the laptop access point.

Oh, and I feel I need to justify my lack of network savvy. I'm an electronics technician by trade, not an IT technician. I've never had any formal training in networking, and very little in IT. Typical military thing - you're a techie, just fix it!

Post by **FatherJack** » April 14th, 2007, 21:12

Yeah, Internets>Modem>Router>Switch>Computers - the computers can go where the switch is, but if you wanna use it, that's where it goes.

By access point, I just mean having the switch in a convenient place, like on a table. When someone comes along with a laptop they use their own bit of cable to plug in, they when they go away, leave a nice neat box, instead of a wire plugged into nothing. *

Another application is how I do it: I have a 4-port router upstairs where my internets come in (it's on the roof through radio majicks), with three computers connected and a single long cable going downstairs. There I have a switch which connects to PS2, XBox, Laptop and a wireless thingy for the Wii.

* Edit: I started out in Electrics/Electronics, so how you are about boxes doing nothing - that's how I am about wires not plugged in to anything. Those poor little electrons going all the way down that big long cable with nothing to do at the end...