ent_sendnow(), something to think about. If you want to get rid of dplay_entrate(), sending every entity every blah blah percent second, consider how much you could lessen traffic by only sending when necessary with ent_sendnow(). Just a thought.

Why send an update for every entity, even when they are not moving or doing anything? Ala dplay_entrate(), when you could just send entity update when really needed? Of course, you would probably still want to send the entity updates at a rate, similar to what dplay_entrate() did, but only when an entity is actively doing something.

Yup, I really said that. Whatever it means.

Commands to consider:

Server:
entity.nosend;
ent_sendnow(entity);

Client:
send_skill();

yep loco thats what i already do, i ONLY send updates once entities start moving. when they stand still i of course dont update. i just use send_skill from the movement part of the statemachine.

however i have currently to send all positions to all clients with send_skill because there is no send_skill_to if there where something like this i could send updates to the clients who really need it because they see this entity moving. but well maybe this will be implented in the future somehow someday far away from now in another infinite galaxy.

01.06.06 iam currently having some problems with the inventory system. right now i can pick up entitys but if i want to drop them in the world iam having a theoretical little problem.

for the server this is no problem but for the client it is. i thought i go like this.

whenever a client wants to drop an item i do the following. i put the itemid in a skill player._want_to_drop and sent this to the server. then i send the position where he wants to drop it in the world also with skills to the server.

there i check if the player really owns this item and if yes he can drop it - create the item. but this is the problem i dont have a good idea how to do this and where. if i do it with an ent_next loop and constantly check for the player._want_to_drop skill i waste a lot of ressources i think....

but well maybe i have to do it this way if i dont have a better idea... maybe some of you have

Create item on client or server.
Send skill to server.
Server send skill to clients.
Drop item on server and clients.

Now, if you want to check if the client actually has this item to drop, you could always have "iventory boxs". So, every machine knows what is in each space of inventory. This way you dont tell the server and clients "drop item x". Instead, you say "drop inventory box x". It will work if you label each peice of inventory in it's own container... and it's in the same container on each pc(you place it in the container upon creation, the container really just contains a pointer to its item/items). This is quick thinking though, so mabye it won't work(I never worked with an rpg inventory before).

02.06.06 okay i got it working now. what i did was just sent the item wich a player wants to drop to the server. the server checks the players inventory if he really owns the item. then he drops it with ent_create.

i do this in an ent_next loop with a sleep(0.5) (thanks to firoball for this idea). so with sleep the ent_next loop doesnt take too much ressources. so whenever the skill player._want_to_drop is set to a number. the server checks if in the players inventory is this item with the number. then it ent_creates. the item on the ground where the player clicked.

this is saved in player._drop_x and player._drop_y btw.

it works really good! players can now pick up and drop items from the world. the next things i have to do is make this rough prototype better. so it works with more items. and players can change the positions of the items in the inventory. after this i will make a smaller inventory for stackable things like arrows, potions and so on.

then iam ready to make the player equipment system. so he can equip armor and so on. when thats ready i thought i will have to make the stat calculation depending on what the player is currently carrying.


two things i dont like is that you cant supply a function with an argument when using ent_create so ent_create(str_model, nullvector, function(argument)); doesnt work ):

another thing i really fear is that i will run out of entity skills pretty soon... well maybe i can optimize a bit but i really think this will be a big problem to deal with.

anyways i whish you all a nice weekend. laters!

Glad to see you continuing to move along.

All of your concerns listed above can be overcome without much problem. Never under estimate the power of compacting data into a string and using send_string() or send_string_to(), decoding the info in the string when it arrives at it's destination. If used right under certain circumstances this can be a very powerful command. Send_var() and send_var_to() on the otherhand are pretty much worthless in alot of situations, especially when it comes to arrays, because you can not send a single variable of the array, it always sends the entire array. Babbling now.

I might explain more about this later if you get to a point where it is really necessary. My first ever attempt at 3DGS muliplayer, long, long ago in a galaxy before 3DGS networking really worked at all, I used this method extensively.

I can just imagine you thinking, "What the heck does this have to do with any problem I just listed in my last few post?" Answer, nothing and everything. If 3DGS doesn't supply a command you need or give you as many skills as you need, etc, you may have to think outside the box a bit in transfering multiplayer data.

Just some precognition stuff,
Loco

hey there, iam sorry for the big delay in this thread. i had enyojed the summer and relaxed a bit. also iam busy completing our game "utz wollewutz 3d" wich will be done in some weeks with a6.

this project here is not canceled, it will be continued - however with another engine. i found out torque is much more suitable for this job. with 3dgs you will have to do so many workarounds and still not get the capabilities the torque network engine gives you right away in terms of networking.
i dont want to wait years for vital a6 multiplayer features.
dont get me wrong, a6 is a very good engine for small singleplayer games - even small multiplayer might be possible.

i dont think ill come back to a6 for the current multiplayer project. after the time of summer i came back to the forums and realised i havent missed much. looks like no interesting projects are under development right now. 1 employee also left the conitec team.

i really hope things get better soon here, its hard to switch the engine after the work you put into working with it.

maybe ill release the code of the project i already have once iam a bit ahead in developing with torque.

greetings

well yesterday i bought torque and was surprised with what features it comes. shure it is not so good as a6 with shaders but i dont mind that.

iam not making a6 bad, i really like it for little games and daemonica showed that even big ones are possible!

i just see that torque saved me about 1 year of development time in terms of multiplayer capability. iam pretty shure that a6 will take some years till multiplayer is at the point where it is now with torque. but maybe it will never reach the point? who knows?
i dont want to be the one running against windmills. i want to create a game, i dont want to be the one developing engine features that should be included in an engine.

well i wish you all good luck with your projects. ill release the sourcecode wich includes simple movement, chat with teamsay and whisper and simple item management dropping soon here for you to examine.
greetings

sorry for digging up the old thread, just in case any one is interested in the code i released it as promised now. see this thread here
http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/726234/an/0/page/0#Post726234
or my homepage. greetings.