The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Voivod]

Seems you didn't get the point,

So what was the point?

 

[AJW]

Don't be crass, I was only giving a high level overview of their server hierarchy and how it's should work theoretically work from my own knowledge of real networking and server hardware. If you wanted a deeper explanation, perhaps you should ask the people developing it instead of posting crap like this.

You haven't explained anything. Your 'explanation' consists of a statement that redefines 'instance' half way through. Which you then justified by saying that " there is no real definition of what an instance is". Reducing your statement to an assertion that something undefined can do something undefined. Which is crass. Or crap. Or both.

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

Heheh, so what is the point?

So what was the point?

The point is that we have been through this before, there was also a lot of scepticism on how would CIG could use CryEngine to accommodate multicrew ships, large area maps without loading screens, seamless landings, dogfighting and fps, planetary landings, procedural systems etc. Btw there's nothing wrong in being sceptic just like there's nothing wrong in being excited for the possibilities.

 

[lysan]

The wrong only applies when someone claim to be the father of xyz game mechanics, this has all Been done before, Arma had many players in one helicopter long before SC came along, so let's just say that it has improved during the years, but SC was not the first to do it.

 

[Osmanthus]

The point is that we have been through this before, there was also a lot of scepticism on how would CIG could use CryEngine to accommodate multicrew ships, large area maps without loading screens, seamless landings, dogfighting and fps, planetary landings, procedural systems etc. Btw there's nothing wrong in being sceptic just like there's nothing wrong in being excited for the possibilities.

Well I would argue that CIG hasn't handled those things very well because the game is still unstable in its physics.

CIG have used CryEngine to accommodate multicrew ships... badly, since the game is unstable. Large area maps without loading screens... badly, since the game is unstable. Seamless landings... uh, badly, and it's hardly impressive. Dogfighting, just lol. They've used CryEngine to accommodate FPS... badly, which is doubly saddening because CryEngine is designed for FPS. Procedural systems... not ingame, all we have is CIG's word that it'll be in. Based on their previews, that hardly compares to existing tech, too.

As long as the game is a mess, 'potential' is all there is (if that), and 'potential' does not a good game make. Once the bugs are fixed, then we talk.

 

[darkoff]

1000's in the same instance? That sounds too good to be true! Just 100 seems good already hehe. Looking forward to see that come true. Is there a time-line for that? Is it scheduled for 2.7 Update by the end of the year?

Its scheduled to be finished at same time as stanton system will be finished.
So couple of years, decade, half a century. Who knows.

 

[szopin]

If anyone's up for more napkin math, here are more interesting stats from a developer of an actual fps game:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=115099.0
That is game that works with 200 players on same server/instance, fps so data transmitted closer resembles what SC will be doing (where player is aiming, which WoW doesn't share I believe etc), with a physical gameplay (each weapon has weight, which impacts swinging speed etc, no click for insta hitscan dmg)

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If anyone's up for more napkin math, here are more interesting stats from a developer of an actual fps game:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=115099.0
That is game that works with 200 players on same server/instance, fps so data transmitted closer resembles what SC will be doing (where player is aiming, which WoW doesn't share I believe etc), with a physical gameplay (each weapon has weight, which impacts swinging speed etc, no click for insta hitscan dmg)

The relevant part from that link would be this:

At a 64 player server each client will receive about 13-16 KiloBytes per second bandwidth

At our big server when there are like 150 people playing this goes up to 30 KiloBytes per second. I even have seen it at 45 KiloBytes per second with 190 players.

64 player ~0.25KB/s
150 player ~ 0.2KB/s
190 player ~ 0.24KB/s

Take the worst (0.25 KB/s) and for 1000 players that would be 250KB/s

= 2000Kbit/s = ~ 2Mb/s line .. allow excess for bursting [70% usage of a line] you need 3Mb/s BW (downstream) to play Mount & Blade @ 1000 players.

 

[szopin]

The relevant part from that link would be this:



64 player ~0.25KB/s
150 player ~ 0.2KB/s
190 player ~ 0.24KB/s

Take the worst (0.25 KB/s) and for 1000 players that would be 250KB/s

= 2000Kbit/s = ~ 2Mb/s line .. allow excess for bursting [70% usage of a line] you need 3Mb/s BW (downstream) to play Mount & Blade @ 1000 players.

The interesting part is where increasing number of players by 25% (150->190) increased traffic by 50% (~30kB->45kB), not sure this is linear. You can't squeeze in information about 1000 players in 250bytes, or the update rate/tick drops, will see if I can find any info on how they made 200 work

 

[briguy168]

Well then, don't go saying things like "well *really*, no one really has a fixed definition for what a server is!" and then immediately follow it up with "I don't know what I'm talking about"
You can't really complain when you get called out on things like that

e: honestly dude, that post was good only in the sense that it immediately informed the reader what to think of it, rather than it becoming clear over a period of time

You haven't explained anything. Your 'explanation' consists of a statement that redefines 'instance' half way through. Which you then justified by saying that " there is no real definition of what an instance is". Reducing your statement to an assertion that something undefined can do something undefined. Which is crass. Or crap. Or both.

Well considering that there is NO definitive definition of what an instance is... I fail to see how mentioning that invalidates what I posted because what it actually does is clarify that the word "instance" doesn't have a hard meaning and therefore can be used to describe what CIG is setting out to accomplish. So let's recap here, an instance could be described as multiple concurrent users connected to a game state (aka a shard) to an object being initialized within a program (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/instance). Seems to me that you are the ones that are confused here; oh that's right you guys fail at extrapolating anything beyond a black/white construct....my bad.

 

[hairychris]

Well considering that there is NO definitive definition of what an instance is... I fail to see how mentioning that invalidates what I posted because what it actually does is clarify that the word "instance" doesn't have a hard meaning and therefore can be used to describe what CIG is setting out to accomplish. So let's recap here, an instance could be described as multiple concurrent users connected to a game state (aka a shard) to an object being initialized within a program (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/instance). Seems to me that you are the ones that are confused here; oh that's right you guys fail at extrapolating anything beyond a black/white construct....my bad.

Talking about network gaming it's concurrent users of a game state. That's what ED does, and the implication in the notes of the network layer Orlando linked to is this to (and he uses the term specifically).

The OOP definition is irrelevant in this context.

Seriously dude, context is important. It sounds like you're muddying the water.

 

[Osmanthus]

Well considering that there is NO definitive definition of what an instance is... I fail to see how mentioning that invalidates what I posted because what it actually does is clarify that the word "instance" doesn't have a hard meaning and therefore can be used to describe what CIG is setting out to accomplish. So let's recap here, an instance could be described as multiple concurrent users connected to a game state (aka a shard) to an object being initialized within a program (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/instance). Seems to me that you are the ones that are confused here; oh that's right you guys fail at extrapolating anything beyond a black/white construct....my bad.

You seem to be quoting a very general definition which doesn't really apply directly? How about wikipedia's definition:
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area."

Like you, I'm no expert in the area, but even I can tell that this is a more relevant definition for an instance in the context we're discussing.

Now, I know you want to say "that just proves that it has no clear definition!" Understand that context-dependence is not the same as not having a clear definition. Would anyone disagree with the definition I list here, in the context of MMOs? I ask this genuinely. That would help answer the question of whether it has a definition.

e: in light of hairychris's comment, the above is from the definition of 'instance dungeon'. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

 

[szopin]

Vincenzo (guy who hacked M&B Warband to support 200 from original 64):
http://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=149.65;imode
Simplicity is the key here, fidelity vs network physics, at some point CIG will have to face reality (there was also another thread on mb warband forum where he said they had to hack a lot to allow 200 players, but no details, my understanding they decreased fidelity even more to allow more players, decision time Chris)

 

[hairychris]

You seem to be quoting a very general definition which doesn't really apply directly? How about wikipedia's definition:
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area."

Like you, I'm no expert in the area, but even I can tell that this is a more relevant definition for an instance in the context we're discussing.

Now, I know you want to say "that just proves that it has no clear definition!" Understand that context-dependence is not the same as not having a clear definition. Would anyone disagree with the definition I list here, in the context of MMOs? I ask this genuinely. That would help answer the question of whether it has a definition.

e: in light of hairychris's comment, the above is from the definition of 'instance dungeon'. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

The word "instance" has very wide usage in the computing world. The widest definition that I can think of is that an instance is simply a self-contained entity, generally of which multiple can be invoked within a system. Context tells you what exactly the instance describes (database, server, any object in OOP, etc).

Because we (and CIG) are talking about multiplayer gaming, the context is firmly the environment that players interact in. So... any talk of 1000s of users interacting in realtime in-game, then yeah, that's instance, as your next 1000s of players also need their world.

Also amusing that the dude building the client/server protocol that CIG plan to use is specific that he's developing for 64 players simultaneously, and even uses the "instance" word.

Any other definition is irrelevant. If someone claims that lotsa folks can interact with each other, unless all players are, you are instancing the maps.

[sour]

EDIT: I don't mean to be grumpy, I've spent the day trying to get sense out of a finance department who don't understand that creating apps from massive raw database dumps requires rules for procesing the data to make anything sensible come out the other end. [wacky]

 

[szopin]

You seem to be quoting a very general definition which doesn't really apply directly? How about wikipedia's definition:
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area."

Like you, I'm no expert in the area, but even I can tell that this is a more relevant definition for an instance in the context we're discussing.

Now, I know you want to say "that just proves that it has no clear definition!" Understand that context-dependence is not the same as not having a clear definition. Would anyone disagree with the definition I list here, in the context of MMOs? I ask this genuinely. That would help answer the question of whether it has a definition.

e: in light of hairychris's comment, the above is from the definition of 'instance dungeon'. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

Planetside2 used different definition of an instance when breaking that record with 1158 players, it was on a continent that had some 20-30 instances by your definition (people not seeing each other), ppl really need to play it and join a 96vs96 instance to see how fidelicious it gets though, thet player you had last update about 5 seconds ago when he was climbing stairs/hill? He is happily strolling into the sky, next to the flying tank, your client does prediction, but not full emulation, so ground etc is not covered.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The interesting part is where increasing number of players by 25% (150->190) increased traffic by 50% (~30kB->45kB), not sure this is linear. You can't squeeze in information about 1000 players in 250bytes, or the update rate/tick drops, will see if I can find any info on how they made 200 work

Yup - and when they doubled from 64 to 150 the "per player" dropped. Unfortunately it's not an exact science when doing this client side as a lot of the time it depends what is happening. I am sure doing activities like shooting and firing off missiles (in SC) will bump up the information required to be sent. Plus informing clients where pieces of debris are; effects of them being shot; shooting others; ship deformations; etc ... all adds up and IMO CIG is going to have to really bring their A game when it comes to optimisation time.

 

[szopin]

Yup - and when they doubled from 64 to 150 the "per player" dropped. Unfortunately it's not an exact science when doing this client side as a lot of the time it depends what is happening. I am sure doing activities like shooting and firing off missiles (in SC) will bump up the information required to be sent. Plus informing clients where pieces of debris are; effects of them being shot; shooting others; ship deformations; etc ... all adds up and IMO CIG is going to have to really bring their A game when it comes to optimisation time.

Yeah, 64 was default, they hacked a lot to allow more, so expected, fidelity dropped (maybe update only when aiming angle changed more than 30 degrees? or tick dropped to 1/3, so you see less of what ppl do, sacrifices, something which makes no point of doing when discussing dreams)

 

[hairychris]

Planetside2 used different definition of an instance when breaking that record with 1158 players, it was on a continent that had some 20-30 instances by your definition (people not seeing each other), ppl really need to play it and join a 96vs96 instance to see how fidelicious it gets though, thet player you had last update about 5 seconds ago when he was climbing stairs/hill? He is happily strolling into the sky, next to the flying tank, your client does prediction, but not full emulation, so ground etc is not covered.

That's true, but it has massive compromises!

Quoting in full:

By playing planetside 2 in the beginning i can tell you how they achieved.

Cutting down on server controlled mechanics.
Like hit detection that is client side. People had hacks that made the server think somebody behind a mountain could shot everybody else just by pointing at the sky ect, or pistol were able to destroy a tank.Because they forced a hit detect through the hacks.

The more people are on a spot the closer you have to get for them to actually be shootable. It took some absurd moments, where you had a "view range" of 5m that essentially brought all combat to a halt and close quarters. Making it a grenade lobbing fest.
Other problems when the players count got to a point was that you had situations where your client didnt even rendered those people in your view range. Making you attackable by invisible people.

The next thing was the render ranges. In order to attack infantrie you had to be much closer before you could see them, while vehicles you could see from miles, and infantrie shoot at it. The vehicle coulndt shoot back because they were invisible.

Planes even worse. Depending on player count on a area, you could essential land on infantrie before you realized they are there. So infantrie with AA weapons, could shoot you on insane ranges, with invisible weaponfire and for you no way to bombard them back until you fly low enough for them to actually be hitable... again client hit detection, what your client didnt rendered wasnt hitable for you.

BUT it was playable in terms of lags ect beside the whole rendering problems, and those only got really out of hand when absurd numbers were fighting on one spot.

You don't really want to do that!

Now, I suppose that you can start doing clever stuff like, say having a "ship" instance with multiple users that interacts in with a parent "world" instance, but you won't get 1-1 with things like damage aka fidelity.

 

[szopin]

That's true, but it has massive compromises!

Quoting in full:



You don't really want to do that!

Now, I suppose that you can start doing clever stuff like, say having a "ship" instance with multiple users that interacts in with a parent "world" instance, but you won't get 1-1 with things like damage aka fidelity.

Indeed, same as drop of b/s in warband when going from 64, that was original designed for, to get 100+, you need to sacrifice something, chris is still in dreamland where eggs and bacon current temperature being prepared by a player in the kitchen is sent to everyone in the ship (an stool size and density if on toilet), because of fidelicious dreams, time for reality to hit, 2.7, start your wiresharks and see for yourself what the client shares/gets. Something will have to give

 

[briguy168]

You seem to be quoting a very general definition which doesn't really apply directly? How about wikipedia's definition:
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area."

Like you, I'm no expert in the area, but even I can tell that this is a more relevant definition for an instance in the context we're discussing.

Now, I know you want to say "that just proves that it has no clear definition!" Understand that context-dependence is not the same as not having a clear definition. Would anyone disagree with the definition I list here, in the context of MMOs? I ask this genuinely. That would help answer the question of whether it has a definition.

e: in light of hairychris's comment, the above is from the definition of 'instance dungeon'. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

Good, now we're getting somewhere. Considering that you and AJW questioned how I was using instance, it was apt to at least mention that the definition of the word is malleable thereby challenging your claim.

Still failing to see how this "an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area." invalidates what I originally posted which was describing how one server could host 25 "dungeons" with 64 players connected to each "dungeon" while the server allowing communication between the different instances.