Quote:Original post by hplus0603 Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't add solutions based on provider requests, only based on happy user requests or significant market penetration (as seen in trade press). So if you have some happy users, you can tell them to come here and post about it, or point me at some trade press coverage, and I'll be happy to add the link.
There's a proverb about letting another man praise you so I won't argue too much with your decision. I will say though that every time someone uses the service, code generated by the service is being used. So we are both providers and users.
Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises www.webEbenezer.net
"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." Proverbs 27:2
@TheGlib: is NAT-punchtrough needed for clients who try to connect trough TCP? Cause afaik it isn't. Or am i wrong?
@Topic: I think in general TCP is really easy as a beginner to handle but if you want to create "fast-paced" game as you say where ever millisecond of ping-improvemnt counts you have to somewhat use UDP i guess. In my approach i just implent bigger server ticks but because of TCP they are sure to arrive and i think the result is kinda equal though my game is not a shooter or racing game.
NAT punch through is not needed when only the client is behind a firewall, whether it's TCP or UDP. Punch-through is also not needed if the server is behind a firewall, if that firewall is doing proper port forwarding, DMZ handling, or reverse NAT.
