Yes, it will be really interresting that Frontier explains in detail the principle of operation. Really interresting. I think lot of us want an explanation.
ED Server / Servers Down problems discussion thread
- Status
Yes, it will be really interresting that Frontier explains in detail the principle of operation. Really interresting. I think lot of us want an explanation.
Depending on how they designed the network setup, it could be either way.
If they setup so that only a handshake is required and then you transfer to a "host" session, then the host and anyone joining will have a period of ISP traffic. If the host and client are local, then it could send the traffic directly over the local network - after all, the host is the server and not on the internet.
Any session change would require a server update. So if you stay in the same region of space then it's all handled locally. If anyone wants to join your session, or one of you goes outwith your "zone", or some random event kicks off then there should be some form of ISP traffic between your host server and the one in the UK and then the clients.
Having everyone on the same LAN would give you an advantage, your client responses would be faster as latency really wouldn't play a part.
Of course everything could all be driven from one central server, in which case the more folk you have on the same LAN = the slower the ping!
If they setup so that only a handshake is required and then you transfer to a "host" session, then the host and anyone joining will have a period of ISP traffic. If the host and client are local, then it could send the traffic directly over the local network - after all, the host is the server and not on the internet.
Any session change would require a server update. So if you stay in the same region of space then it's all handled locally. If anyone wants to join your session, or one of you goes outwith your "zone", or some random event kicks off then there should be some form of ISP traffic between your host server and the one in the UK and then the clients.
Having everyone on the same LAN would give you an advantage, your client responses would be faster as latency really wouldn't play a part.
Of course everything could all be driven from one central server, in which case the more folk you have on the same LAN = the slower the ping!
I would think if you "unplug" your LAN from the WAN the client would eventually "time-out" and end your session.
If not and there is that much going on client side, doesn't that reveal an inherent security risk and open the game up to hacks and exploitation?
I'm just curiously making an uninformed assumption
Indeed.
But if coded in a certain way then the host would be the only computer on the LAN transferring data back to the main server, everyone else would be running across the local. Everything would still be up-to-date, but your relative latency would be very low. Because the main server isn't actually running your session the latency between it and your computer would not come into account.
Maybe an easier way to think of this is a FPS where you are running a server. People from outside your network can still join in, but anyone on your LAN will join with a much faster ping time. It's all governed by an external server but all the calculations are done by the local server.
There is nothing stopping you from hacking the game, until the two servers try to sync and come up with a bad match... then the anti-hacking bit comes in and boom, either you get wiped out or it resets or something.
As others have said, it should be better if you are on a LAN instead of a WAN, but we just don't know.
There is a reason this is all speculation - if we knew in advance how it was going to work, then someone would have a hack ready for day 1!
But if coded in a certain way then the host would be the only computer on the LAN transferring data back to the main server, everyone else would be running across the local. Everything would still be up-to-date, but your relative latency would be very low. Because the main server isn't actually running your session the latency between it and your computer would not come into account.
Maybe an easier way to think of this is a FPS where you are running a server. People from outside your network can still join in, but anyone on your LAN will join with a much faster ping time. It's all governed by an external server but all the calculations are done by the local server.
There is nothing stopping you from hacking the game, until the two servers try to sync and come up with a bad match... then the anti-hacking bit comes in and boom, either you get wiped out or it resets or something.
As others have said, it should be better if you are on a LAN instead of a WAN, but we just don't know.
There is a reason this is all speculation - if we knew in advance how it was going to work, then someone would have a hack ready for day 1!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier have (I believe) stated that server (source code / binaries, not sure) would be released only when the Frontier run servers are switched off.
Errm, until Elite V, at least ;-)
David was cited as saying there would not be Elite V .. simply add-ons and enhancements to ED as this project had a timeline of 10 years+
I do not believe this was the case .. It was more to do with if they switched off the servers then they would ensure your local copy continued to work.
Local copy should work come what may, if it's playable completely offline (as is supposed to be the case).
This .....will not gonna happen. As Liqua stated already, first is E: D for at least 10 Years+ and Second is, that David said he will NOT make an Elite V at all.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Your memory is indeed less fallible than mine - I was half remembering an expressed desire in a KickStarter comment for the server source to be released as open source should the servers ever be shut down. Mea culpa.
They could have meant a way for you to transfer your online MP character to a local one; plus I am not sure exactly of the time lines here as I know single-player offline was not confirmed from the start.
If/when the servers are switched off, will it still be possible to play MP. Would they allow some method of having a consistent universe run by third party or player hosted servers that others can then be invited to?
To the OP, I certainly hope so. It would be a shame to have the game forced back into single player.
To the OP, I certainly hope so. It would be a shame to have the game forced back into single player.
It would certainly be nice to have the ability to run private MP servers if the official servers are ever closed down. In fact, I wonder if the SP game will effectively be client-server, with the server limited to that single client.
(or not limited at all, if Frontier didn't mind people running private MP servers from the get-go ... though I can see why they'd want to encourage people to participate in the official universe instead.)
(or not limited at all, if Frontier didn't mind people running private MP servers from the get-go ... though I can see why they'd want to encourage people to participate in the official universe instead.)
Start server ?
Just wondering
Will we have a start server or create match option so we can create our own Death Match games etc...
Could be fun ?
Just wondering
Will we have a start server or create match option so we can create our own Death Match games etc...
Could be fun ?
That will do nicely then
An alternative - form a group.
There will be no other players (barring NPCs) in the universe other than the group you joined.
- Status