garyw
O-F Administrator
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,485
- Reaction score
- 209
- Points
- 138
- Location
- Kent
- Website
- blog.gdwnet.com
What happens if I'm not at my PC does my ignoring the request make it an automatic yes or no?
Multiplayer Finally being created
- Thread starter Bonanza123d
- Start date
I guess this could be decided based on server option selection.
Server can have a rule that if client does not respond with time accel request within X seconds then:
a. assume request is yes
b. assume request is no
Or another server option can be a voting system similar to most first person shooters which is used widely for changing to the next "map"
And all those rules can also be set in server options such as required majority for request approval.
50%, 75% etc.
I like the idea if giving the server different options because I think certain rules make more sense with more or less clients or friends vs strangers in the server.
Making a fixed set of rules that all servers have to use will cause frustration depending on the quantity and type of clients participating in the multiplayer session.
There could even be other options such as...
Allow clients to kick player through voting. (If someone is being stupid or lagging everyone down)
Enable, Disable Time Accel
Limit Max Time accel speed possible. (100X etc)
Limit client max latency while connecting to server
Enable, Disable ship "transfer of controls" option to other clients
Bonanza123d, what are your thoughts with regards to the time accel features and other ideas I have described above? I would love to see multiplayer as described just don't have a good understanding of the limitations to implement these features.
Server can have a rule that if client does not respond with time accel request within X seconds then:
a. assume request is yes
b. assume request is no
Or another server option can be a voting system similar to most first person shooters which is used widely for changing to the next "map"
And all those rules can also be set in server options such as required majority for request approval.
50%, 75% etc.
I like the idea if giving the server different options because I think certain rules make more sense with more or less clients or friends vs strangers in the server.
Making a fixed set of rules that all servers have to use will cause frustration depending on the quantity and type of clients participating in the multiplayer session.
There could even be other options such as...
Allow clients to kick player through voting. (If someone is being stupid or lagging everyone down)
Enable, Disable Time Accel
Limit Max Time accel speed possible. (100X etc)
Limit client max latency while connecting to server
Enable, Disable ship "transfer of controls" option to other clients
Bonanza123d, what are your thoughts with regards to the time accel features and other ideas I have described above? I would love to see multiplayer as described just don't have a good understanding of the limitations to implement these features.
Last edited:
now that wont be fair if 1 guy is docking to, say the ISS, and the rest of them are waiting in interplanetary space, and the poor guy whos about to dock is forced to have his time warped.
dont make a 50%, 70% approval, make it 100% only.
Carmen A
redneck kitten with pillow :3
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 751
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Can I be in Texas?
- Website
- v149th.yolasite.com
I am against any form of kick voting or server-side time acceleration.
We are not playing a FPS game where people are team killing, spamming flashbang and smoke etc. The persons who are in OMP or intend to try it out do not "muck around". Infact they are welcome to muck around, this is an alpha build after all.
Therefore instead of server controls, Face should focus on other priorities. Regular pilots can and have organised squadron missions and regulated server functionality since a month ago, and I will ask you - if I can personally command a fleet of capital ships with fighter escort on a lunar mission while wingmen teach other pilots how to do an interplanetary flight (no prior experience), why bother with such features?
--
On the subject of time acceleration, it could and should be handled in a "squadron" format. If we can say, assign individual craft to a "command ship" close by and we have matched velocity with it, some sort of time acceleration bubble could be created to move these ships to their destination rapidly (without affecting sync - velocity multipier?).
But there is right now, a better option than asking people to work on more coding.
It's called rwarp, and we've been using it in concert with custom interplanetary ship configurations to launch missions to the outer planets.
Well it might be crude solutions at work here but I like it - who cares if it's an alpha build with minimal features? Make use of the platform to the fullest.
The only time I'll ask for feature requests from the server operator and Face, is when I have created enough work for OMP to mirror his 6 years of dedication to this project.
Any radical changes in the meantime, don't hold much weight if they don't come from the flight testing group (who you know, fly 2-8 hour missions on a regular basis and can identify feature needs vs wants). Needs first, always. And Face has the final say on what really needs being done.
We are not playing a FPS game where people are team killing, spamming flashbang and smoke etc. The persons who are in OMP or intend to try it out do not "muck around". Infact they are welcome to muck around, this is an alpha build after all.
Therefore instead of server controls, Face should focus on other priorities. Regular pilots can and have organised squadron missions and regulated server functionality since a month ago, and I will ask you - if I can personally command a fleet of capital ships with fighter escort on a lunar mission while wingmen teach other pilots how to do an interplanetary flight (no prior experience), why bother with such features?
--
On the subject of time acceleration, it could and should be handled in a "squadron" format. If we can say, assign individual craft to a "command ship" close by and we have matched velocity with it, some sort of time acceleration bubble could be created to move these ships to their destination rapidly (without affecting sync - velocity multipier?).
But there is right now, a better option than asking people to work on more coding.
It's called rwarp, and we've been using it in concert with custom interplanetary ship configurations to launch missions to the outer planets.
Well it might be crude solutions at work here but I like it - who cares if it's an alpha build with minimal features? Make use of the platform to the fullest.
The only time I'll ask for feature requests from the server operator and Face, is when I have created enough work for OMP to mirror his 6 years of dedication to this project.
Any radical changes in the meantime, don't hold much weight if they don't come from the flight testing group (who you know, fly 2-8 hour missions on a regular basis and can identify feature needs vs wants). Needs first, always. And Face has the final say on what really needs being done.
Last edited:
Face
Well-known member
Carmen, thanks for your support of OMP here. But I guess buznee was addressing Bonanza123d's "work" here.
buznee, to clarify:
What Carmen is talking about is OMP, a working multiplayer platform for Orbiter (at the time I write this, there are 3 users online). Bonanza123d's announcement here was about his own project. This later project never made it to the public, in fact Bonanza123d stated that he will now work on OMP (although I never heard anything from him again).
On the subject of time-acceleration: your points are valid, but IMHO it doesn't make sense to have such a system "globally" for the whole server. It should be possible to have separate "rooms" in the server, where different teams can use different time-accelerations. Of course, splitting and merging these time-lines should be possible, too.
This is what my time-bubble concept is about. I described it here in numerous threads, so if you want to know more about it, just search for the term "time-bubble".
regards,
Face
buznee, to clarify:
What Carmen is talking about is OMP, a working multiplayer platform for Orbiter (at the time I write this, there are 3 users online). Bonanza123d's announcement here was about his own project. This later project never made it to the public, in fact Bonanza123d stated that he will now work on OMP (although I never heard anything from him again).
On the subject of time-acceleration: your points are valid, but IMHO it doesn't make sense to have such a system "globally" for the whole server. It should be possible to have separate "rooms" in the server, where different teams can use different time-accelerations. Of course, splitting and merging these time-lines should be possible, too.
This is what my time-bubble concept is about. I described it here in numerous threads, so if you want to know more about it, just search for the term "time-bubble".
regards,
Face
im no good at any programming, but if you split the entire place into 'rooms', what would happen when i transfer from one to another, and im at the 1st rooms time acceleration and move onto the 2nd one. how will it switch?
Face
Well-known member
CTC Paradox
New member
I quite like buznee's idea for time acceleration. It reminds me a lot of Defcon's system. Basically the game runs at the lowest time acceleration that has been selected. So if 3 people have selected x3 but 1 has selected x1 then the game runs at x1. If all 4 people had selected x3 then the game would run at x3.
It also lets you see who is requesting what levels of time acceleration so you can see who is slowing the game down.
It also lets you see who is requesting what levels of time acceleration so you can see who is slowing the game down.
