| Author |
Two big bugs need fixing |
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
|  Posted: 2010-07-15 16:15
ok...beating a dead horse here....
then why do fighter bombers work just fine 99.999% of the time?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-07-15 16:32
There's no error or bug in the code. Fighters fire a lot more bombs, and so have a higher chance of getting through - that's all. Bombs from a ship and bombs from a fighter are exactly the same (bar damage values, etc).
_________________
|
Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: February 04, 2006
Posts: 581
From: Norway
| Posted: 2010-07-15 16:40
Um, is planet capping going be more like WoW? an utility that u will use no skills on? Well i certainly don't hope for this because that will make the game even more boring...
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-07-15 16:48
It's being worked on and that's what matters, but I'm skeptical of a roll system in this game. It's good for things like infantry vs infantry, but not for things directly in our control, not for ship weapons etc.
A simple hit-or-miss roll is gonna feel too random. Random damage rolls are fine, but being able to hit should not be random.
EDIT:
Quote:
| UDP is faster then TCP and more suitable for games that need quick information updates like First Person Shooters. UDP is faster because its packages simply much smaller. But there for also unreliable
There are no build in measurements to check if a packages was lost along the way and if I'm not mistaken nor in what order the package arrives.
If your close to the server and have a good stable connection, even if your lose a few packages, you will hardly notice it. Most FPS payers prefer to play on a server with a ping under 100ms any thing above the deem not worth playing on due to network lag (packages getting lost/arriving in wrong order).
TCP has addition data added so that checks can be done along the way and when it arrives. The packages are ordered in number so would package 654679 arrive followed by 654681, the server will request for packages 654680 before processing 654681.
Because of all the extra data added to perform these checks its slower and larger, but great deal more reliable then UPD. |
|
This is what I remember being changed long ago. We have the option to disable UPD, but it doesn't feel like we have the old reliable TCP system because packets are still dropped on a regular basis (I'm on the east coast US).
I rarely had desync issues back then, but we all had lag, and if I'm not mistaken the lag was the reason for the change?
Can the newer servers not handle TCP again?
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2010-07-15 16:54 ]
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-07-15 16:57
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 16:48, MrSparkle wrote:
This is what I remember being changed long ago. We have the option to disable UPD, but it doesn't feel like we have the old reliable TCP system because packets are still dropped on a regular basis (I'm on the east coast US).
I rarely had desync issues back then, but we all had lag, and if I'm not mistaken the lag was the reason for the change?
Can the newer servers not handle TCP again?
|
|
Only movement is handled via UDP. All damage and nouns are handled via TCP streams. There is no mysterious bug in the bombing system, we have simply outgrown it.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2010-07-15 16:59 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-07-15 17:23
What does enabling UDP do then?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-07-15 17:32
Means movement is handled by UDP packets, instead of a TCP stream. That's all.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-07-15 18:10
Ok I'll keep it disabled. It should at least help.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-07-15 18:18
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 18:10, MrSparkle wrote:
Ok I'll keep it disabled. It should at least help.
|
|
Quite the opposite. UDP is far superior when compared to TCP for player movements. If your router, ISP, and firewall can support UDP packets being sent and received then you're far better off leaving it enabled.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-07-15 18:20
Ok it's enabled now  Damn I'm confused lol but thanks. I thought TCP with it's checking for packets would be superior considering I tend to lose some along the way.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-07-15 19:11
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 18:20, MrSparkle wrote:
Ok it's enabled now Damn I'm confused lol but thanks. I thought TCP with it's checking for packets would be superior considering I tend to lose some along the way.
|
|
For some things, it is superior. For others, not so much. If you drop a movement packet, then you simply coast for a bit, or slow down until the next one is received (that's why some really laggy players jerk around a lot). All TCP would do is slow this process down and you'd end up with a backlog of movement packets - this is what caused the lag in previous versions.
_________________
|
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
| Posted: 2010-07-15 20:33
Thanks for the information, we do appreciate it.
The only other space game that I'm aware of using real-time projectiles like this is Sword of the Stars. They have a lot going on at once, but not (yet) on the scale of DS. Maybe in SOTS2. 
_________________
|
JBud
Marshal
Joined: February 26, 2008
Posts: 1900
From: Behind you.
| Posted: 2010-07-15 21:34
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 15:02, Faustus wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 15:01, BackSlash wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-15 12:54, Azreal wrote:
|
|
|
|
What he said... new bombing & planet system is coming soon.
|
|
^-^ Sooner than a fortnight?
_________________
[-Point Jumper-][-Privateer Elite-][-Summus Dux-][-Praeclarae-]
[img(RIP MY SIGNATURE DELETED AFTER 7 YEARS/img]
''Insisto Rector - Suivez le Guide - Tempus hostium est''
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-07-15 23:12
Btw, what about bug #2? Buildings operating without enough power?
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2010-07-16 08:50
I've noticed power shortages much over 50 will result in buildings randomly deactivating, then reactivating and different ones deactivating. It doesn't target specific buildings (like highest power usage first) nor does it cause the whole planet to crash all at once, and doesn't even result in tech/worker shortage all the time if the research facilities or farms/domes turn back on right away.
In other words it seems to be working fine to me. A planet is not going to be completely shut down unless all the power is off, and if most of the power generators are taken out then the planet will be mostly nonfunctional.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
