Not really, each client needs to receive data from the objects/players/ships that are near him, not every object/player/ship in the system/instance. Unless you put/get the 1000 players in the same spot obviously.
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Also... comparing four months of polished releases to a complete fumble for two years is hardly logical...
- - - Updated - - -
But that was exactly what Croberts implied. Rolan- you just defined a limited instance.
Well, you just defined instance. This is how ED does it too. There are no tech allowing 1000 players interacting at once in one spot using twitch gameplay. Physics just don't allow it.
The difficulty then is managing the instancing to make it as seamless as possible. ED has near-instant drops from supercruise to "glide" to the planetary surface, for example, but the matchmaking negotiation can take several seconds or even (in bad cases) minutes. That's time spent setting up connections between the players, and is a big disadvantage of the P2P approach (using AWS primarily for matchmaking and BGS). The Star Citizen approach is more likely to be client/server (although I don't think this has been announced); if so, it will require a lot more server instances and a lot more data passing through them: instead of having a lots of discrete eat paths, everything needs to pass through one massive virtual server. It's likely to be a very expensive approach, so might test the "no subscription" model. Perhaps real-money purchases of in-game items will fund the servers, as I suspect the purchases of cosmetic items in ED partially do.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
Just to add a couple facts to keep things in perspective re ED: Re 2.4, actually no, the pitch for 2.4 was not Winter. It was simply "coming soon". It had no date nor content stated in the original roadmap.
2.1 came as planned in Spring (May), and 2.2 has come a month and a half after end of Summer.
Happy new year!
Just to add a couple facts to keep things in perspective re ED: Re 2.4, actually no, the pitch for 2.4 was not Winter. It was simply "coming soon". It had no date nor content stated in the original roadmap.
2.1 came as planned in Spring (May), and 2.2 has come a month and a half after end of Summer.
Happy new year!
Last edited:
Happy New Year to you too!
I think FD's initial hope was to get Season 2 out in a year, but the complexities of 2.1 pushed it back a bit. We were kept informed, though, and I don't think there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. To the best of my recollection there was never an official release date for 2.3 or 2.4.
But this is the Star Citizen thread. Must fire it up and have a go later.
I have a 325a waiting for the game to be released. There is IMO little reason to buy into the project at this point. Wait and see. The rest of us have already given them all the funding they should need.
If the game gets released and gets good reviews, then it's the time to jump in.
- - - Updated - - -
Shadowbanning for life should be perfectly legal.
FD do hand out perma-bans to cheats, they just don't make a public issue of it. There's a forum rule against links to cheat sites (as theres always someone who would be tempted then blame me), so I can't show it to you.
But google can help search for people complaining about being banned. There's one who quit hacking ED after losing multiple accounts including an early backer one he claims to be €200 total out of pocket to the ban hammer.
But google can help search for people complaining about being banned. There's one who quit hacking ED after losing multiple accounts including an early backer one he claims to be €200 total out of pocket to the ban hammer.
So 2016 is over and we have 2.6 not 3.0....
here are some welcoming words for SC in 2017 (sure not directly pointed at SC...yet..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65sF8vxYeU&feature=youtu.be&t=11922
But I just wonder will SC replace NMS in 2017 or it can survive till 2018...
here are some welcoming words for SC in 2017 (sure not directly pointed at SC...yet..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65sF8vxYeU&feature=youtu.be&t=11922
But I just wonder will SC replace NMS in 2017 or it can survive till 2018...
Of course it will survive. According to The Enemy (Derek Smart, but it's not as boring if you refer to him as some mythical doombringer, destroyer of games) there are going to be some layoffs, so it should extend their funds, and if they're low on cash it's enough if they release another fancy video or something to earn few million. They should make it to Gamescom at least, and there they can announce 3.0 again to collect another few million.
TotalBiscuit is as always is right about this one.
SC won't replace NMS in 2017, because it won't be released yet. As long it won't be released, full deflation of hype won't happen.
As for survival - I don't think even Derek believes CIG will be gone in 2017, they will however downsize/optimize. Maybe, just maybe miracles will happen. But if they will struggle with releases again and will do tech demos, it will be strung out phasing out.
Anyway, Squadron 42 ep 1 is now next target. I guess strongest guesses are March soonest, June latest. I will go with latest considering amount of stuff they are missing (according to CIG itself).
if they miss Squadron 42 release window however things will go nasty very fast.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
I presume those words were offered in the context of NMS? It is still amazing how appropriate they still are "like for like" (to use a popular expression these days) with Star Citizen... Especially the part about:
"... There is the key difference, if you want to 'evangelize' a title after release because you've really enjoyed it then so be it. You go for that. But if you want to evangelize a game that you haven't even played yet, that you've put down money merely on the promise of, then at that point you are a detriment to this discussion and a detriment to the whole consumer base."
I mean, one could argue that we can actually play some bits of the game already, but the truth imo is that what little we can see is but a minuscule peek into the game with no fundamental game loop or mechanics deployed and completely bugridden at that. Most, if not all, of the 'evangelism' currently being done is still on the basis of promises.
I presume those words were offered in the context of NMS? It is still amazing how appropriate they still are "like for like" (to use a popular expression these days) with Star Citizen... Especially the part about:
"... There is the key difference, if you want to 'evangelize' a title after release because you've really enjoyed it then so be it. You go for that. But if you want to evangelize a game that you haven't even played yet, that you've put down money merely on the promise of, then at that point you are a detriment to this discussion and a detriment to the whole consumer base."
I mean, one could argue that we can actually play some bits of the game already, but the truth imo is that what little we can see is but a minuscule peek into the game with no fundamental game loop or mechanics deployed and completely bugridden at that. Most, if not all, of the 'evangelism' currently being done is still on the basis of promises.
Last edited:
I believe what you're missing is that it's essentially an O(N2) problem, at least according to him. I haven't done any internet multiplayer coding, so I don't know - but to me, that seems like a reasonable assumption. It's nowhere near as simple as sending the clients the positional data itself thrice per second and hope that nothing goes wrong.
He was describing the bandwidth requirements for an instance with 1000 players.
Assuming a client-server setup, then the positional and heading data for each ship would take up 288 bits sent by each client to the server 3 times a second. So client upload bandwith requirements would be 864 bits every second. Of course, in reality there'd be a good bit more information sent but Hanz was simply looking at position and heading.
The server, however, would have to update 1000 clients with the information from 1000 ships....so its datasize would be 1000 times greater sending to 1000 clients so its vandwidth requirements rould be a million times more.
But even then....chicken feed for a data centre.
So I am not sure why he thinks each clients would require a 300 meg link just for positional and heading data when it appears only the central server might require that type of bandwidth
This is the main issue for me. People declaring the BDSSE without an even partway finished product. Just a series of disconnected modules and a limited PU.
Time will tell how these things work out, and if indeed it will be the BDSSE.
My main feeling at the moment is that SC will be no different to all other games in the long run. Sure, it might be a good game, it might be a great game, but its still got to at some point make a release. Release early, and have the million threads per week entitled "This game is missing" or "This game needs", or release late, by why point people ED is already on its Nth season and people are already turning grey waiting.
It's avoided simply due to the general suspicion we've had for a couple of decades that he googles himself every morning, finds his name, then completely takes over any thread in which he's mentioned.
Yet strangely, the reason given for thread closure mention none of those reasons?
I wasn't suggesting Frontier allow personal attacks on themselves, genius. I was pointing out the fact that other personal attacks are regularly left in the thread. QED, some personal attacks are permitted.
Actually, he's been wrong on many SC topics on many occasions. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once a month. If Derek claims tomorrow that "SC will adjust staff levels at some point, TRUST ME," I wouldn't call it clairvoyance. I'd call it an expected outcome in a development environment.
Part of the problem seems to be CR's obsession with *cough* fidelity. The more detail (character model positioning, bullet/projectile tracking, etc) the more data needs to be sent to the client applications. Link this with, say, a high tick rate and even if the datacentre can handle the traffic & processing you'll definitely start to get issues with user's connections. We haven't even thought about NPCs, environmental effects, and so-on.
TBH thinking about a 1000 player instance and you really do start to get very real problems with the computing power needed as the CIG model doesn't, or rather cannot, off-load a lot of the details to the local game client as Frontier does as it isn't peer-to-peer. Now, you can always add more computing horsepower but this comes at a price, and I don't know how a non-subscription business model can cover it without continuing ship sales to existing customers.
There's a reason why fps/twitch-style games don't have hundreds of people in an instance, except maybe in lobbies.
Last edited:
I'm no expert on game networking, but the assumption that 3 updates per second for a twich game seems low. For strategy games, fine, even perhaps excessive. If you do a google you can find a really cool article about some of the tricks they used in the old days to get age of empires to work well over modem connections with so many units, including things like predictive movement, which can still be used today. But even so, we make a hell of a lot more than 3 adjustments per second when flying out ships in the middle of combat (including firing weapons, chaff, etc). The lower the value, the less "fidelity" you get.
Maybe 3 times per second is enough. No idea what ED uses for its P2P instances.
Maybe 3 times per second is enough. No idea what ED uses for its P2P instances.
It's avoided simply due to the general suspicion we've had for a couple of decades that he googles himself every morning, finds his name, then completely takes over any thread in which he's mentioned.
Derek doesnt need to google himself there's an entire hate sub archiving every mention of him, if I was Derek (which of course I am) I'd just check there. He also regularly reads and posts in this thread, so not really effective. Other than voldemort gags obviously.
The thread starter bleated at length about it in r/dereksmart.
Well the head honcho's of CIG brought it on themselves when they went down the everybody look at us route. You cant demand privacy when taking to the stage and every video opportunity you get even if you are a z-lister.
A lot of whats said is negative, but then theres very little to be positive about.
He's been consistantly more accurate than CIG, which is worrying and funny. He also isnt sitting on a throne made from other peoples money shouting "substantial release no refunds on donations" whilst the tech demo crashes behind him.
You also have to remember that a lot of the time he's playing to the gallery.
- Status