Offline mode

sidereal6

S
Walter2 said:
Wouldn't a huge amount of code have to be written just to effectively handle a dynamic human-focused galaxy? If no player visits a system, nothing changes - no expansions, wars, elections, public holidays . . .
Click to expand...
My guess is, no.

Think about the situation after everything settles down - when no humans have touched any systems for a long time. The final states that everything settles into are ultimately also due to randomized stats of the minor factions. We'd have to look at the code to know what those stats are, but we know they're in there. All you really have to do to make the bubble "dynamic" is periodically reshuffle those stats.

And you can do that using random numbers seeded with, for example, the week of the year. Let's say there are just three stats for each minor faction. You could use the factions ID + the week of the year, as the seed to a random number generator. From that you get your three stats. And you repeat that for every minor faction.

...this plan is undoubtedly way more chaotic than you'd want in practice. Instead of completely reshuffling, you could allow the stats to be modified up or down by small amounts. But you get the idea.
 

Scary Asp Explorer

S
well if someone makes private server but never make it public aka just local machine its still breaking ToS/EULA. even once ED dies. even after they release files creating the server would be no no still. they would not give away it.. but there could be option - Fdevs could sell the server licenses instead making free release. this way there wont be thousand empty ed servers but 2-3 good ones.

well there is another problem of ED private server - development,new updates,new stuff.. this cant be done by single person. the development team must exsist otherwise creating private ED server would have no sense because it would not progress. there would ne no new ships to collect,no new modules,no new weapons,no new events etc.
 

vanFace

V
Scary Asp Explorer said:
they would not give away it.. but there could be option - Fdevs could sell the server licenses instead making free release.
Click to expand...
Nobody would seriously invest in a dead game, which it would be at that time. Well, perhaps some enthusiasts would shell out whatever FDev could charge them, but I doubt that it will last long.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Sunyavadin said:
Glances at the 14TB of used space on this laptop

70GB, such a lot....
Click to expand...
I do have Elite installed 3 times, once for each account i'm using. That's more than 200gb allocated for basically a single game. 🤷‍♂️
So I'm not complaining, others did tho.


(And i wouldnt mind to get a 2+ TB SSD and use if all for a single game)
 
Last edited:

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Scary Asp Explorer said:
well if someone makes private server but never make it public aka just local machine its still breaking ToS/EULA. even once ED dies. even after they release files creating the server would be no no still. they would not give away it.. but there could be option - Fdevs could sell the server licenses instead making free release. this way there wont be thousand empty ed servers but 2-3 good ones.

well there is another problem of ED private server - development,new updates,new stuff.. this cant be done by single person. the development team must exsist otherwise creating private ED server would have no sense because it would not progress. there would ne no new ships to collect,no new modules,no new weapons,no new events etc.
Click to expand...
It's a cloud-hosted model. Would there be any way to make it into a classic server-client model? I kinda doubt it. Not without substantial work and effort and I doubt anyone's gonna pay for that and FD likely wouldn't want to sell any intellectual property anyway.
 

jojje

J
Navigare Necesse Est said:
It's a cloud-hosted model. Would there be any way to make it into a classic server-client model?
Click to expand...
There is no difference between the two, so Yes. The server code that they run on virtual machines rented by AWS, they could run on braben's workstation just as well. Using the cloud is just for convenience, scaling and cutting down on the latency between the backend and the client. If the code runs next to you, you are the only user(s) and you don't plan to redeploy the code all the time, there is zero benefit to running it in the cloud.

This forum is a cloud service. It's client-server system. You can run the bb-software just as well on your laptop. No magick. Same goes for games.
I doubt there is much data either. Code for coordinating state is typically small. The data flowing in and out of the ED client is minuscule.

What is the cloud? Your data on someone else's hardware.
 

Jack Winter

Jack Winter
There is a video where they explain some of their backend architecture. It does rely on several Amazon services that are not available on a private PC.. The best I could see happen if it comes to that is either they turn it into a cheap subscription model, or they give out the backend code for use by some player organization that finances it to be run on Amazon.

What I don't expect to see is making the server code public domain for all to hack around in.
 

jojje

J
Jack Winter said:
here is a video where they explain some of their backend architecture. It does rely on several Amazon services that are not available on a private PC
Click to expand...
You mean this?

Most of the "technobabble" by Dav is for services that have 1:1 counter-parts outside AWS. AWS just likes to give their managed variants cute names.
The two mentioned that are exclusive to AWS are DynamoDB and SQS. DynamoDB is a key-value store and there is an open source drop-in replacement available. SQS is just a queue, and there are numerous options. However, I don't think any of that infrastructure would really be needed since any developer worth their salt create abstractions between their own code and that of third party code. They do that to make it possible to test the code without the infrastructure, which would otherwise make a lot of testing impossible to extremely slow, cumbersome and costly. Many also do this to protect the company from uncontrolled external events, such as the vendor hiking prices, something better coming along or the vendor going under (not likely of AWS though). In gaming, even for local games, you do that abstraction to make porting between platforms (consoles, windows, mac etc) feasible.

Since FD clearly has some bright talent, and is a gaming company, I'm certain they've employed such abstractions.
As such, I'm also certain they have sub code already that they could just patch into the places of the client that currently relies on remote server communication.

All in all, I think they could patch out the server dependency tomorrow if they wanted, so I'm not concerned about their ability. It's all down to whether or not they want to do it. Certainly there is no justification for it now from their perspective. However when the sun sets on the title, it should give us optimism that ED would be able to live on without active support from FD.
 

Sunyavadin

Sunyavadin
jojje said:
All in all, I think they could patch out the server dependency tomorrow if they wanted, so I'm not concerned about their ability. It's all down to whether or not they want to do it. Certainly there is no justification for it now from their perspective. However when the sun sets on the title, it should give us optimism that ED would be able to live on without active support from FD.
Click to expand...
I still enjoy hopping on to a Freelancer server now and again.
 

Jack Winter

Jack Winter
jojje said:
You mean this?

Most of the "technobabble" by Dav is for services that have 1:1 counter-parts outside AWS. AWS just likes to give their managed variants cute names.
The two mentioned that are exclusive to AWS are DynamoDB and SQS. DynamoDB is a key-value store and there is an open source drop-in replacement available. SQS is just a queue, and there are numerous options. However, I don't think any of that infrastructure would really be needed since any developer worth their salt create abstractions between their own code and that of third party code. They do that to make it possible to test the code without the infrastructure, which would otherwise make a lot of testing impossible to extremely slow, cumbersome and costly. Many also do this to protect the company from uncontrolled external events, such as the vendor hiking prices, something better coming along or the vendor going under (not likely of AWS though). In gaming, even for local games, you do that abstraction to make porting between platforms (consoles, windows, mac etc) feasible.

Since FD clearly has some bright talent, and is a gaming company, I'm certain they've employed such abstractions.
As such, I'm also certain they have sub code already that they could just patch into the places of the client that currently relies on remote server communication.

All in all, I think they could patch out the server dependency tomorrow if they wanted, so I'm not concerned about their ability. It's all down to whether or not they want to do it. Certainly there is no justification for it now from their perspective. However when the sun sets on the title, it should give us optimism that ED would be able to live on without active support from FD.
Click to expand...
No it was some other video, can't remember the details. Might have been a Q&A with Dav, but it was a long time ago and I'm no longer sure about the details.
 

jojje

J
Jack Winter said:
Still that requires to FDev to publish the code or at least an API to allow someone else to build the server infrastructure needed.
Click to expand...
I don't think it will be that bad Jack. As I wrote, they most likely have stubs already in place for their day-to-day testing. They'd just have to send out a patch that swapped the functions that call the server code with those. Worst case, they'll send out a small patch and a single small executable that bundle those stubs. The latter would allow for just a reconfiguration of the client, and the ability for folks to host a small server. That's also a common pattern when testing "net-code" with minimum fuss :)
 

outrun74

O
I was thinking if only 1% of the game has been explored, can't they just use that bit? Does not sound like anyone is ever going to see more than that.
No Man's Sky is 12GB to install, with 18 quintillion planets! Might not be a relevant comparison :)
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
outrun74 said:
I was thinking if only 1% of the game has been explored, can't they just use that bit? Does not sound like anyone is ever going to see more than that.
No Man's Sky is 12GB to install, with 18 quintillion planets! Might not be a relevant comparison :)
Click to expand...
The way the planet generation system works - in both games! - doesn't really have any connection between number of systems and size of install anyway.

The original 1984 Elite fit entirely into 32k (i.e. 32,768 bytes) of memory and had 2,048 systems ... but with a very small modification to its source code it could have had 72,057,594,037,927,936 systems instead (and apparently some early prototypes of it did)

It would (counter-intuitively, but true!) take more disk space to only include the previously-explored systems than it would to include all of them; your ED install already includes the system data for the entire galaxy - or rather, it includes the mechanism to near-instantly generate the system data for any bit of the galaxy at any time, so quickly that you don't notice it wasn't there all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom