PDA

View Full Version : 128 player dogfight



Yellonet
09-24-2004, 08:06 AM
That's news to me anyway. Gonna be fun but seriously laggy most of the time. Probably...

Yellonet
09-24-2004, 08:06 AM
That's news to me anyway. Gonna be fun but seriously laggy most of the time. Probably...

BSS_Goat
09-24-2004, 08:11 AM
We'll see, but I dont believe it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LuckyBoy1
09-24-2004, 08:25 AM
According to Oleg, and I've found his statement stands up under testing, the game is designed to work on dial-up just fine. 128 players is possible without warping, but it means all 128 players will have to be managing their computers well.

See the Users Guide and make sure you address all the issues that can affect ping rates including lack of RAM.

AlexDavies
09-24-2004, 09:21 AM
sounds like fun, but needs a brill computer to get the most fun out of it, i guess.

sauron6
09-24-2004, 09:52 AM
My only qualm is that we can't have 128 player cooperative games! I don't care about having a 128-plane dogfight, but I DO care about having a co-op server where there's enough room to have people manning multiple positions of bombers and really adding some depth to this game!

Fennec_P
09-24-2004, 10:09 AM
When you can usually not get 20 ppl in a server without some serious lagging, I'm not buying this 128 player thingy. Unless they are willing to give free T1 to all PF players.

Probably they just removed the player limit for the benefit of LAN parties.

Jason Bourne
09-24-2004, 12:53 PM
just remember, not all 127 will be visable.

Latico
09-25-2004, 02:33 PM
Will turning the graphics way down help with the lag?

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2004, 04:44 PM
How do tiny airplane dots make lagg?

Doh, I forgot to Whine about improving target dot sizes over the FP. http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif

Ruy Horta
09-26-2004, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
That's news to me anyway. Gonna be fun but seriously laggy most of the time. Probably... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a feature I've been looking forward to for years in the development of IL2/FB/AEP/PF, and I am happy to read that Maddox finally mnaged to put it together, KUDOS!

After three negative posts, I am also happy to make a positive one. If things develop along the lines of the currently available MMP combat sims (WB & AH to name two) its not only feasible, but great fun to boot. Perhaps people won't be able to create a coop, but with the right settings you can still reenact massive scenarios (the key is limiting the available respawns).

From an old WB addict this news doubles the value of the series, perhaps even triples it.

Also if the code works as it should it bodes well for the upcoming BoB sim.

Actually if UBI plays their cards right they could create a more in depth enviorment by providing a dedicated MMP server with a running campaign (at perhaps with modest monthly fee or yearly subscription).

Structured MMP is the real grail of online game play.

(any of you who've played in the WB special events will know...)

Ruy Horta
09-26-2004, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
How do tiny airplane dots make lagg? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Size doesn't matter in this issue. Your PC must be kept up to date on the position of all other objects, and their attititude, and that stream may cause lag.

Of course locally you might get bad performance if your system is forced to visualize 128 a/c if they all theoretically come within close range. Blackdeath will be nothing compared to that.

The sollution is to only visualize up to a number of objects, and particularly those within visual range since those are the only ones that matter.

A visual plane limit can lead to nasty surprises in terms of SA if suddenly there appears a flight of new bogies in an area you only seconds ago checked as being clear.

The latter example once cost practically my whole WB squadron when we were caught low afer our initial attack on an enemy bomber formation, when suddenly an escorting unit appeared above us that simply wasn't there when we set up the initial attack.

So expect an additional strain on your SA (Situational Awareness to those who are new to the term).

Brakovitch
09-26-2004, 04:03 AM
I am not much of a technophobe but I fly in Fighter Ace where there are 8 carriers and nearly 400 players in the one game some nights and it seems to play fine. I know Fighter Ace originates with Microsoft and the graphics are not as good, but surely if they can do it so can Oleg. Have some faith guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Scragbat
09-26-2004, 12:04 PM
It's a bold statement! A possible 128 pilots online without lag?
I actually believe it. The online code is perhaps a little dated. For PF it may be completely reworked with new algorithms and optimisation.
Why would they say it if it was only a dream?
Just a shame that the online community is not as big as it deserves to be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
With 128 player game servers (that work without lag?) HL may only have 3 or 4 game servers on it LOL...

As it stands I can host for 10 pilots comfortably on my DSL line (512/256) as long as I don't have too much flak going on.
With the optimisations that are coming our way in PF I wonder how many slots the humble DSL guy in the street will be able to host for???

Watch this space http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2004, 04:23 PM
Most of the lagg/ warping occurs when the host machine is a very basic set up, or when one or players come into the game using a USB connection to their modem/ router.

A central server, set up properly should be able to cope with 128 player setup easily.

I do like the concept though.
The Pacific Online Theatre.

TheJackalx2k
09-26-2004, 05:22 PM
Aces High might not be as detailed as IL2 but the Aces High server holds 500+ people in it most of the time and it runs really well with barely noticeable lag. I'm speaking about network lag of course.

Also, I don't think IL2 was the "first" to have this many people as it states. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlakJakOfSpades
09-26-2004, 11:10 PM
aces high and fighter ace have real servers to host these things, not just small time ones, we're talkin industrial grade, thats y they're able to handle all the info, plus the game's info is more basic than il-2's at least that is my understanding

Tully__
09-26-2004, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheJackalx2k:
Aces High might not be as detailed as IL2 but the Aces High server holds 500+ people in it most of the time and it runs really well with barely noticeable lag. I'm speaking about network lag of course.

Also, I don't think IL2 was the "first" to have this many people as it states. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PF will be the first that doesn't run on a dedicated server farm, pay to play MMOG setup.

The issues to look for are sufficient bandwidth in the server and all the players connetions to handle position/damage data for all those planes plus all the ground objects in the map, plus sufficient server CPU and RAM to keep track of all those objects.

Whether it works or not will depend on how the netcode is handled. If the server only streams data to a particular client for aircraft and objects that are with the 20km max visibility range used by IL2 then it will work fine, though you should expect some dramatic pauses as you approach large cities (similar to the spawn pauses you get in current DF's).

If the server is streaming all data to all currently connected players, large player number servers are going to have to have simple maps with not too many objects on the map.

Samoflan
09-27-2004, 12:38 AM
Don't forget... most of the terrain will be water. Flat ole water. So that will help in reducing lag. So I would think.

WT-Schmouddle
09-27-2004, 01:09 AM
Okay, flyboys....

I am a "serverGuru" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif of WT_Dedicated. server currently running on HL.
I think I have gained experience in running a dedicated machine, so let me comment the matter.

Our server is 1Ghz Athlon,1024Mb RAM, with a connection of 10Mbits directly to Internet, the computer is physically in ISP's server room. From my home computer the ping to the server machine is about 15ms with packetloss 0.

Our server is set up for 20 ppl on HL and we are dealing with serious lags when playing some of our missions.
However, according to the activity and usage log, the machine has almost nothing to do. The average usage of CPU time is 30%-40%, peaks to 70%, physicall memory is usually only half-full and the net usage got its peaks in 10%. The peaks occur when FBDeamon sums up the score.

Lags usually happen when AAA fires, when player spawns, when player is kicked or when server is loosing connection to a player, which I would call bad netcode.

We have a mission reacting sinking of Marat in Kronstad harbor in 1941. the mission is unplayable due to lags when AAA fires. One could say in AAA defence the Marat-class BB would be roughly equal to an American destroyer in Pacific. Let this beast shoot at anybody and all the players on the map will have lags. The same (even worse) is with the Tirpitz.
If the netcode in PF would be the same, we can forget about TaskForces. If enemy gets close to the TF, all players on map would freeze inflight.

Regarding 128 players in usuall (scripted) DF I would say - nonsense, 128 guys online MIGHT be possible on dead flat Onlinemission11 with no AAA. Would it be fun?

jeroen-79
09-27-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samoflan:
Don't forget... most of the terrain will be water. Flat ole water. So that will help in reducing lag. So I would think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lag depend on how fast the server and players can communicate.
Terraindata wouldn't need to be sent around since everyone has a copy on their PC.

Flat water would be good for framerates though.

Tully__
09-27-2004, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WT-Schmouddle:

Our server ... with a connection of 10Mbits directly to Internet ... net usage got its peaks in 10%.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's 1Mbs peak data transfer on the net, far more than many client connections can cope with. That combined with client machines processing all that AAA is the cause of the lag I'd guess. Even if that net traffic is divided evenly between all your 20 clients, it's still 50kbs which is more than all but perfect 56kbs dialups can cope with, and the client AAA processing is still an issue.

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Will turning the graphics way down help with the lag? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres two factors that cause the warping but get the same name, Lag, which is wrong.

Some of the stutters come from to many objects on screen causing the FPS to drop and turn into a slide show. This can also apppear to cause the jumping about. Some mods for first person shooters cause this when they have to many objects and code that needs optimisation. Theres also network problems which is lag. This can be packet loss, high ping times etc.

I can't see 128 players working with the current net code of FB.

WT-Schmouddle
09-27-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
That's 1Mbs peak data transfer on the net, far more than many client connections can cope with. That combined with client machines processing all that AAA is the cause of the lag I'd guess. Even if that net traffic is divided evenly between all your 20 clients, it's still 50kbs which is more than all but perfect 56kbs dialups can cope with, and the client AAA processing is still an issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hallo, Tully

Your post does not deny (and I do not take it as it should have) my previous statement, "Netcode of FB is considered not being good".
Our server is located in Prague, Czech Republic. As you might know, the telecomunicaton market is not so fancy here and people are connected to Internet by various (sometimes unreliable) means, like WiFi,Dial-Up etc...
Anyway the server itself is set-up pretty tightly in terms of connection of clients. The freezes just happen even though there are only WT squadron members with known connections. Even my test with Tirpitz shows the game would lag and freeze even where there is only me on the server.....
IMHO that 50kbps (80kbps with TS)is not so much for a cable or ADSL, don't you think?

I seriously HOPE the netcode will be somehow reworked, otherwise PF is like a fancy pimp car with flat tires.

Anyway the topic is about 128 players in one session....I will remain sceptical.

Tully__
09-27-2004, 06:41 AM
I consider netcode for FB to very good, inasmuch as you can get up to 8 players in a coop with all on 28.8kbs dialup provided the mission is carefully designed to eliminate unecessary objects. This is much more than can be said of some earlier multiplayer flight sims. On the other hand, the full potential of mulitplayer gaming may need considerable further opimisation.

I believe 100+ player games are possible but for good play would require very careful mission design. Intense AA would be out of the question, as would a number of other things likely to impact on either server performance or network traffic.

I expect that only at LAN parties would the full potential of this option be able to be explored, but with ultra broad band connections beginning to be available and PC's continually improving in performance, perhaps two years from now 50+ players will be commonplace. It's nice that the developers have given us the option to make use of future tech improvements even if we're not likely to be able to use the 128 player option to its full potential at the time of game release. All too often the life of a game is limited by the developer being over cautious about system requirements. Sure, this assures good market penetration at intital release, but it also means that the game dates very quickly, forcing the developers to generate a series of hasty and poorly thought out follow ups to maintain revenue flow.

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-27-2004, 12:09 PM
Currently, If I could simply add another 10 players (up to 42) and keep it easily playable with other effects still in the game I'd be very pleased. Doubling it to 64 would be outlandishly cool.

Sometimes baby-steps are necessary and I'm ok with that.

TB