He admitted to not reading the entire thread and 3 of his 4 points have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Hence, I was creative as you say.

Ok this will be off topic but i have to answer because im not that noob your trying to make public think ok?







Jooz i did spent! yesterday you went bed, and i still tryed all night long, and i tryed for more 5 hours! the thing is that, when i use it to make a server it works, but when using as client, it crashes... but it has 2 different situations:

1: the ip is in a string pointer i.e:
STRING* s_ip="89.bla bla";~
and then call client start (e, 2300) and this wont crash but the connection will never be made..

or if i call direclty

client start("88.90.. ",2300) it will crash.. and im sure im doing everything like examples demand... Am not saying its GS fault! but i said, i cant even work with the lite-c version.of the gstnet one (as lite-c) ... dont get me wrong lol.

I used GSTNET for multyplayr once, with c-script and it worked perfeclty, so its not that i dont know how to work.

Lol, fastlane69 has finally lost his mind.

But you know what, he is right, the native 3DGS multiplayer networking doesn't work efficiently over the internet. Sorry Conetic, but that's the truth.

Make us a deathmatch demo that we can connect like 16-32 players to running around shooting and killing each other over the internet that runs smoothly and I might change my mind. Oh yes, in the real world not everyone has a LAN line speed connection over the internet, the native multiplayer networking should handle this, although the host should have best computer and connection speed.

I sit here thinking, how do you know it really works Conetic if you don't even have a demo made that shows it working for like 16-32 players over the internet? Surely you have a Shoot Em Up demo you have tested the networking with over the internet you can share with us. If not, then that leads me to believe you tested some simple multiplayer code over LAN and never really stress tested anything over the internet at all, which is very sad if true.

I am not even going to discuss MMO's here. Just prove to us that 16-32 players in a multplayer demo that involves more that just walking around works first.

Not that it matters to me, we are working outside of 3DGS networking now, but the fact that you (Conetic) are not listening to your customers and actually putting them down for telling the truth and stressing that they "Failed" pisses me off to no end. Maybe they "Failed" because they tried to use your product as advertised and your product "Failed", which when it comes to 3DGS networking I think I have a pretty good idea of which "Failed".

Let's say I make a multiplayer game and advertise that 32 players can play it, maybe I should do months of test under different circumstances (connection speeds, etc) and make sure 32 players can actually play it over the internet before I release it and advertise it a such? If the game will only run over LAN or if everyone has to have a T2 internet connection speed or better, maybe I should put that on the game box label?

If you don't have the time to even read and take into account what problems are being presented to you in the forums and dismissing them without proving that the issue isn't true, then maybe we don't have the time to waste with your product.

Later,
Loco

I am working on a proof of concept with A6 pro that is entirely hinged on being a MMO. I have read carefully through this entire thread and every single post, because this kind of issue concerns me greatly.

It is my full understanding that in order to achieve an MMO I would need to create a game world that existed across xNumber of servers, each accomodating approx 64 players. With hand written enhancements such as only running things on clients and using the server to check that everyone is playing fair and in reasonably good synch with each other.

Limiting what is sent to and from the server to essential traffic.

If I understand what fastlane and the majority of the experienced MP developers who have posted here, including Mr.Schwarz, they are finding the network infrastructure to be somewhat over difficult.

The debate over what is advertised for the product, I believe, is sidetracking this issue, at least for now. The real message Conitec should be sending out, and maybe are trying too, is that any suggestions on ways to geniunly improve the product are welcome, and we will look into this seriosuly.

Frankly, a product based on a comunity of enthusiastic game developers needs to at least be seen to listen to its customers. So there is really no need to escalate the issue based on what is or isnt currently or previously advertised.

Is the issue even, d_play or not to d_play?

I'm not sure. I think the issue is that we don't have a conitec made demo for many of the core features and Multiplay, especially MMO's, are a very hot topic that we should definatly have a demo for.

TBH: If I was conitec, I would be making these demos, branding them with Conitec content and using them both as advertising for potential new customers and to prove core tech.

This would really help move gamestudio forward and greatly reduce any threads here that debate core functionality, and I would spend less time reading condesending responses about '5 year failed projects' and validity of the developers claim there in.

I am working as a developer for one of the largest games companies in Europe and our products can take 3-5 years to shelf. If we found out our core technology might not be capable of something huge like MP less than a year from shipping....

Chaos!

So please, lets try and figure out what the problem is and maybe someone here could make a 16-32 player demo, and we could all calm down a little

plus, I can continue getting my fumbled MP scripting a little less fuzzled

@fastlane: just spotted the 'False Advertising' thread, definatly good to seperate these issues. Sorry I missed it before this post

i gonna move fully to torque soon,i cann't wait till A10 released conitec will change their mind to listen and fully realize into market trend(mmo*),i predicted from beta pages in next 10 months we all need to renew our license for a8,a10? it means another 250$x3=750$+3 year waiting,iam not programmer guru,but if conitec really expecting us to really dependant on 3rd party plugin,i can imagine a7 will become so like .Net framework family,a full bloatware,even to run a hello word app you need 2 mb ram!! while with asm only 160kb used ram,and with c++ 250 kb used ram,can you see the different why us really insist all of the mmog infrastructure need to be supported natively by the engine not by the 3rd party?

As if conitec intention from beginning to only offer basic multiplayer networking support,i must agree with fastlane opinion regarding false advertisement,to be honest,i was ordered pro edition because of mmo capable advertisement,if i live in germany i will sue for this missdirection to me as customer.Conitec should change the feature in the pages into Networking Framework and eliminated the unlimited number of user in the pages as the supported user by the native network engine only around 20 user?if still unlimited ,conitec need to put a note with BIG black ITALIC note with "Need additional 3rd party addon"

We just want conitec to be more professional,and proof for whatever you listed in the feature pages! i just wasted a grand(a6 pro+a7 pro upgrade!) for this mmo network dream! :(,as i already said bought pro because of wanted to focus on mmo!

I does. I admit it was merely a way of getting Conitec's attention on this issue since we've been unable to get traction on these issues for years! However, once it accomplished it's goal, it got out of hand. However, in the "MMOLove" thread, I believe things are back in hand as we are discussion solutions to make the engine better... which is all I wanted to begin with!!!

As such, Indi and Loco, I encourage you to throw your two cents (or pesos or euros) into the "Make MMOLove not MMOWar" thread in the Future forum. Your posts would add great value to the thread and your insight will really help define what I hope will be the next evolution of the GS Net engine.


Can't lose what you never had.

Come on conitec at last write a plugin dll to give us, and everything would be okay. I think DLL is the best solution, istead of an update, since other players from other engines versions may not recieve it ( DLL plugin for MOG=)