• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FredrikHolmstr

Simulation in time vs. frames (steps/ticks)

2 posts in this topic

So, like always, I have been working on my FPS game. A while back I switched the networking from using time (as in seconds) to using frames (as in simulation frames/steps/ticks/whatever you wanna call them). All state that is sent from both server to client and client to server are stamped with the frame the state is valid for, all actions which are taken (like "throw a grenade") are stamped with the frame they happened, etc. 

 

This makes for a very tidy model, there is no floating point inaccuracies to deal with, everything always happens at an explicit frame, it's very easy to keep things in sync and looking proper compared when using time (as in seconds).

 

Now, the one thing that popped into my head recently was the fact that when you deal with explicitly numbered frames and the client start lagging behind or for some reason runs faster then the server, basically when you get into a state which the client needs to re-adjust its local estimate of the server frame (server time if you are using time instead). When dealing with "time" you can adjust/drift time at a very small level (usually in milliseconds) over several frames to re-adjust your local estimate on the client with the server, which gives next to no visible artifacts. 

 

But when you are dealing with frames, your most fine grained level of control is a whole simulation frame, this causes two problems: If you are just drifting a tiny tiny bit (a few ms per second or so), the re-adjustment that happens when dealing with "time" is practically invisible as you can correct the tiny drift instantly and there is no time for it to accumulate. But when dealing with frames you wont even notice this until you have drifted an entire simulation frame worth of time. Also like I said, when you are going to re-adjust the clients estimate you have no smaller unit than "simulation frame" to deal with, so there is no way of interpolating, you just have to "hard step" an entire frame up/down which leaves visual artifacts.

 

All of this obviously only applies when you are doing small adjustments, but they are the most common ones to do. If you get huge discrepancies in the time between the client and server, every solution is going to give you visual artifacts, snapping, slowdown/speedup, etc. But that is pretty rare.

 

So, what's the solution here? I have been thinking about a model which still keeps most of my original design with frames, but when the state/actions are received on the remote end it's easy to transform the frame numbers into actual simulation time numbers, and then as things are displayed on remote machines you can nudge the time back/forward as needed. I'm just looking for ideas and input on how people have solved this.

 

Edit: But then again, maybe I am over-thinking this because since "time" will also be measured with the granularity of your simulation step size. So maybe there is no difference when you compare the two solutions? For example, if you nudge your local time -1 ms to "align" with the server better, but this pushes you over a frame boundary then everything will be delayed by a whole frame anyway...

 

Edit 2: Or actually, I suppose the case above where you nudge time to get closer to the server and it happens to be right on a frame boundary would require you to drift more then one frame worth of time without detecting it (you most likely got a ping spike or packet drop), because if you just drift a tiny bit away/towards the server, and you re-adjust back closer towards the server, you would never cross the frame boundary.

 

Edit 3: Also, thinking more of this, maybe the reasons I am confusing myself with this is that currently the updating of remote entities are done in my local simulation loop, when maybe it should be done in the render loop instead? I mean, I have no control over the remote entities what so ever anyway, since they are... well remote. On the other hand it feels a lot cleaner (in my mind) to step all remote entities at the same interval as they are stepped on the peer that controls them. On the other hand, maybe this is why it's getting convoluted as I'm mixing up my local simulation of the entities I control with the display of the remote entities. 

 

Like you probably can tell I am pretty ambivalent on what route to go with here, really looking for some input from someone.

Edited by fholm
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you should worry about small time offsets. It's only necessary to adjust the clock if there's at least a whole step off, and at that point, you should probably adjust by at least one whole step.

If you still want to adjust the clock by a small amount, then you should probably go back to your clock source, and whatever those units are. Typically, they are microseconds (gettimeofday()) or raw performance counter ticks (QueryPerformanceCounter()) which ends up being millions or many millions of them per second, so very easy to add an offset that's smaller than a tick.

And note that, when I say "use the clock units" then that's only really in the interface to the clock. For the networking and most other subsystems, still using ticks is the right way to go. Edited by hplus0603
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're right, to keep nudging the clock back and forth is just going to cause issues. I think I over-complicated this a ton in my head. I just needed someone to agree with my initial idea (using ticks everywhere) to feel confident in it I think smile.png Thanks!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0