 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic Page: 1 2 3 4 »» |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Incoming hilarity: abaraba is back, and this time he's fixated on P2P networking! |
|
 |
Gaffer Member since: 12/28/2004 From: Australia |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 12:50:02 AM |
||||
| You folks may remember abaraba from his "fix your timestep" internet crusade: http://gafferongames.com/2008/10/20/fix-your-timestep-crazy-internet-stalker/ Now he's back to make sure that everybody switches from client/server to P2P networking! Quote: his rationale for all this? Quote: (boggle?!) read on for pure hilarity: http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/networked-physics/#comment-11576 cheers all |
||||
|
||||
|
Codeka Member since: 10/19/2008 From: Sydney, Australia |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 1:01:00 AM |
||||
| He suckered us in already. |
||||
|
||||
|
Sirisian Member since: 10/5/2005 From: kalamazoo, MI, United States |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 1:03:23 AM |
||||
| yeah the 2 deleted threads should tell you something. Didn't realize it was the same person. :P |
||||
|
||||
|
Gaffer Member since: 12/28/2004 From: Australia |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 1:20:38 AM |
||||
| Just read through that whole thread - the thing you guys need to understand here, and this is essential to really understand what that abaraba guy is all about - he's not a troll, he actually believes what he's saying. Yep, he's actually that crazy. |
||||
|
||||
|
Codeka Member since: 10/19/2008 From: Sydney, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 1:26:30 AM |
||||
| Yeah, that was the impression I got as well. Stil, I wasted so much time replying to that thread before I realised that he actually had no interest in learning anything and clearly completely ignored parts of responses (and in some cases, entire responses) which didn't fit what he was trying say... Oh well, live and learn :-) |
||||
|
||||
|
Gaffer Member since: 12/28/2004 From: Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 1:44:49 AM |
||||
| My guess is that in addition to being stir-crazy, the guy has english as a second language - and doesn't really understand it too well. In fact, I highly suspect that he takes all replies to his posts and feeds them through google translate, replies in his native language, then google translates it back. Seriously, this would explain a hell of a lot :) |
||||
|
||||
|
Sirisian Member since: 10/5/2005 From: kalamazoo, MI, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 3:07:34 AM |
||||
| I made a post with math and took the time to refute his numbers. I have too much free-time. Hopefully I didn't make a mistake myself though. It would be saner if he had any networking experience. Oh yeah and how fast is a 56k modem? I mean is it really only 56 kilobits/sec max? I haven't seen one in years so I forgot what speed they ran at. |
||||
|
||||
|
Gaffer Member since: 12/28/2004 From: Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 3:19:41 AM |
||||
| I'd *love* to see this guy sweating it out actually trying to ship a console game. Especially considering the 360 TCR that you must function at 64kbit/sec up and down ... try doing that with P2P @ 32 players. I'm waaay too lazy to do the math right now (it's 12:35AM on a sunday night), but the packet header overhead would probably eat up the entire 64kbits, especially if he goes with the 60Hz packet send rate!!! :) |
||||
|
||||
 |
Ysaneya GDNet+ Member since: 1/7/2000 From: Brussels, Belgium |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 4:52:58 AM |
||||
| Mandatory Unskilled and unaware of it link. |
||||
|
||||
 |
oliii GDNet+ Member since: 3/21/2003 From: Ill be back before breakfast |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 5:47:26 AM |
||||
| It's like talking to a wall. That's just too scary, he may actually suffer from a condition. P2P is a pain in the ass. The extra bandwidth requirement and update rate are trivial problems when compared to host migration, and achieving consistency (with exotic NAT router settings and all), packet forwarding, ect... 15peers @ 60hz, you'd be way over the requirements of 64bk/s, your updates would have to be 9 bytes in size, which is less than the actual packet header size. Especially on consoles where you have extra security overheads. Maybe he is the long lost brother of the guys who found a way to compress everything into one byte (cant find the thread here but it was pretty funny). |
||||
|
||||
|
Katie Member since: 6/15/2006 From: Cambridge, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 7:00:24 AM |
||||
| "I mean is it really only 56 kilobits/sec max?" Yes, but it includes protocol bits -- typically 8 bits take 9 to 10 bits to transmit (with sync and parity). So that's really only about 5600cps. Ohhh my word the interwebnets were slow when stuffed down those sorts of connections. |
||||
|
||||
|
EternityZA Member since: 3/22/2008 From: Johannesburg, South Africa |
|||
|
Posted - 8/31/2009 7:59:32 AM |
||||
| im pretty sure this is the same guy: abgupta4 similar style :P http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=207043 he seems to have have deleted most of his old OP's though |
||||
|
||||
 |
hplus0603 Moderator - Multiplayer and Network Programming Member since: 6/3/2003 |
|||
 Posted - 8/31/2009 12:25:23 PM |
||||
Quote: I recall they were about 53 kbps down and 36 kbps up. You could never crank them all the way to 56 kbps, because of signal processing issues. Probably related to quantization noise -- US telecom voice is quantized to 7 bits per sample, with 1/2 bit of quantization noise that lands smack at 53 kbit bandwidth, so that would match up. Quote: It's actually linked from Answer 0 in the Forum FAQ :-) |
||||
|
||||
|
Gaffer Member since: 12/28/2004 From: Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 6:36:33 AM |
||||
| Read on for the new adventures of abaraba - the timestep crusader! :) http://gafferongames.com/2009/09/04/the-return-of-the-timestep-crusader |
||||
|
||||
|
Andrew F Marcus Banned Member since: 9/4/2009 From: Faarge |
|||
Posted - 9/4/2009 7:47:35 PM |
||||
Quote: I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server? Second, have you not in fact admitted the mistake in your time-stepping article where you incorrectly integrate free fall physics equation which is supposed to give exact results with uniform acceleration such as gravity? Fianally, if you are wrong about the main two points, what do you still find hilarious and who are we supposed to be laughing at? Quote: Does the fact that Age of Empires implements P2P on 28.8 modem with perfect synchronization, determinism and fluid animation not make all the objections against P2P invalid, especially if this is intended for console systems and games without dedicated server where the security risks are just the same as with client hosting the game? Is it not the integrated bandwidth of O(n^2) in P2P still better than having just one client(server) use O(n^2) upload bandwidth? Does that not actually make P2P about two times more practical given the same bandwidth constraints? Finally, having only two-player game, do you think it would be better if one player hosted the game for both, or would P2P type of direct link turn out as a better solution in this case? |
||||
|
||||
|
Codeka Member since: 10/19/2008 From: Sydney, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 8:18:45 PM |
||||
| Andrew F Marcus (if that is your real name) maybe you should think about why you were banned all those other times before you sign up with yet another account and start spouting the same stuff all over again... |
||||
|
||||
|
Antheus Member since: 3/3/2006 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 8:29:53 PM |
||||
| Ugh... Hey, about we all go read about Schwarzschild Proton, the solution to Grand unification theory that completely changes the understanding of universe as we know it. It even has lots of formulas and numbers. Doesn't sound this better than all of this boring networking stuff? |
||||
|
||||
|
Andrew F Marcus Banned Member since: 9/4/2009 From: Faarge |
|||
Posted - 9/4/2009 8:59:04 PM |
||||
Quote: Codeka (if that is your real name) maybe you should think about the purpose of this forum and in the spirit of making things clear, for all who come here seeking for help, at least attempt to answer the question or respond in some other meaningful and helpful manner. Is it true that Halo 3 and GTA IV multiplayer in fact work on P2P architecture? |
||||
|
||||
|
Nypyren Member since: 8/20/2002 From: Eugene, OR, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 9:40:52 PM |
||||
Quote: You tell us. |
||||
|
||||
|
Codeka Member since: 10/19/2008 From: Sydney, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 10:03:24 PM |
||||
Quote:No, it's not true. |
||||
|
||||
|
Jeonjr Member since: 7/19/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 10:24:34 PM |
||||
Quote: I don't see how he is wrong here in the case that all clients have equal bandwidth and that if a client had to be a server. Quote: seems to be about the same but writing p2p is harder to sync. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nypyren Member since: 8/20/2002 From: Eugene, OR, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 9/4/2009 10:42:01 PM |
||||
Quote: Another thing to consider (at least in the real world) is that companies sometimes decide it's less trouble to retrofit their ANCIENT single-player codebases so that they are multiplayer capable. This is almost impossible to do if you use peer-to-peer. |
||||
|
||||
|
hplus0603 Moderator - Multiplayer and Network Programming Member since: 6/3/2003 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/5/2009 1:30:04 AM |
||||
Quote: If there is no per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because squared and times-two are different functions. If there is per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because packet overhead matters. Do you think that the people who wrote Counter-Strike: Source, or Quake III: Arena, or Unreal Tournament, are idiots? Do you think they do not carefully test a number of different approaches before they settle on what works best? Why do you think they are not using P2P topologies? Anyway, the proof is simple: Just write a game that is P2P and works much better than current games based on Source, Unreal, Quake etc engines. There are lots of companies out there in the games engine and middleware business, and none of them end up using P2P solutions. If you can write a much better game, or simply license a much better solution, you'll make lots of money! I'll leave you with another question: We've all heard about MAG (Massive Actiongame), right? Do you think they use client/server, or peer-to-peer, for their 256-player matches? And why? PS: Note that I was not the mod who banned the previous poster on the P2P topic. I believe that P2P is on topic for this forum. However, I expect all participants to be polite, and I expect all participants to actually read, and actually respond to, previous posts in the thread. Anyone who just keeps saying the same thing without reading, understanding and responding to previous arguments may be warned and/or suspended. [Edited by - hplus0603 on September 5, 2009 3:30:11 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
Andrew F Marcus Banned Member since: 9/4/2009 From: Faarge |
|||||
Posted - 9/5/2009 1:33:16 AM |
||||||
Quote: All it takes is to forward the input and for other computers to use that data instead of some AI algorithm. It's the equivalent of making two player hot-seat game or split screen multiplayer. Quote: P2P bandwidth cost per peer is O(n) C/S bandwidth cost per client-host is O(n^2) For example, if upload limit for all the clients was 20units, then P2P could support up to 20 players, while S/C approach could not support more than 4 players. Other mistake was him thinking how collective bandwidth usage is more with P2P than C/S, which is obviously wrong since server sends data to all about all and that makes it very wasteful and superfluous way to communicate information, making a pig out of one of the clients, hogging more bandwidth than all the peers together. Hope that explains. Quote: It is easy to write P2P programs and very much easier to sync them. Ask our friend "Stickman": "The multiplayer part is P2P, I've done my best on reducing latency and bandwidth, using various packing schemes and priorities. It works nicely with 30 people online, using only 5kBps upload." http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=509402&whichpage=1� |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Andrew F Marcus Banned Member since: 9/4/2009 From: Faarge |
|||||
Posted - 9/5/2009 2:41:20 AM |
||||||
Quote: Packet overhead hardly makes any difference. Besides, it can always be argued P2P needs only to pass player input between peers. If my statement is wrong than it's because it's understatement, the difference is not "twice", but it rather grows exponentially with the number of players, in favor of P2P. Quote: Yes, if there is no better explanation for not using P2P. Yes, they likely did not think, test, nor care to consider other approaches, most of them did not even write their engines, they copied what others were doing. Everyone is playing it safe, everyone is using one and the same code. Besides, many of them may falsely believe P2P has bandwidth issues. How do you explain it? It's not bandwidth, it's not latency, it's not security. What is it then? Quote: I wrote some even more incredible stuff, unfortunately no one cares and I am even giving it all away for free. Industry is very inert now days, there is so much money involved that it acts as an obstacle to inventiveness and progress, making all the games play and look alike. Do you want to play Stickman? "30 people online, using only 5kBps upload" http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=509402&whichpage=1 Quote: I don't know. They are being silly? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 »» All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
