When I tried MP-scripting I came to a pointer, where I wanted to send data to all clients, but one. That was not directly possible, so I had to make a workaround (where I couldn't use the dead recogning feature the engine provides as example).

I really support the idea of getting some kind of 'puremode' only with the most basic features, so that you can customize everything as you like it.

Of course it would be also great, if the functions the engine provides could become more 'open', so that you can control the processes, which get automated right now

A pure Mode is simplest way to externalize the mentioned problems from the engine-core, as then
solutions can be created and discussed by using Lit-C code.

Everything can be tailored.
The limit is then just the boundaries of TCP/Ip, latency and
datavolume.
Its also saver for Conitec, as they cant be blamed for
missing functionality/bugs, when the basic pure-mode function
are implemented properly.

Example: encryption:
When needed the user can create his own encryption of the data
in the ip packges, wich is just basic data-manipulation.

Zone-Servers:
when the engine can open and handle multiple client and server sockets
the zone architecture depends just on the
understanding of the user to open and manage the datatransfer.

File-sharing:
Just write a code, that makes the file into a bytearray,
transfer the data, and recompile the file.

For less skilled users, the networking can work as before,
enabeling them to make simple multiplayer games.


Also: there are tree strategic movement pressure given the tastes of users -
They should be regarded to keep up a weight in the gamedevelopment - Conitec should yield them to keep
their product interesting in the future:

#1 expand to portable platforms (not targeted by 3dgs)
#2 expand to gaming consols (not targeted by 3dgs)
#3 expand to multiuser internet games (this should at least get higher priority)

Your 'logic' says , that you shouldnt use 3DGS , but instead find an engine that doesnt have anything so that you could add everything else yourself...I doubt thats the reason why you use Acknex
If Conitec creates the system your talking about , I doubt anyone would use it. If someone has enough experience in this 'field' to make a MMO network system (even a team of people) why should he use 3DGS and not create his own engine or use another ? What is the reason to use the Acknex engine ?
If you could create your own engine , why should you use an existing body of a car , when you can put your own on the market and sell it as original , and not just a modified car ?

Also , if someone can create a MMO network system , I doubt they cant create what youre suggesting. If anyone is capable of creating a whole system like that , why do they need a 'base' to build on to , when they can just start from scratch with their very own plugin that does the same job...
3DGS is a package that makes things easyer...It comes with a MP system , not a C++ compiler to build your own. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say

Please stay on topic. Discuss this in the other MP thread. This one is for suggestions.

A point that is often missed by commmunity and Conitec alike. If you are going to offer MP, support it... don't just pass it off to DLLs, make incremental updates once a year, or rely on a dead architecture such as the MP FPS DPLAY based model that Conitec's A7 MP follows.

And taking the MP ideal a bit further, if Conitec is going to imply MMOG with their engine, then at least listen and give credence to those of us that are trying to make one so as that together we can make a GS MMOG a possibility for everyone!



Eppy baby, you know I understand. You, Firoball, Locoweed, Excessus, and I (am I missing anyone?) are probably the only ones that have seriously thought about these issue, put it to practice, AND made it public within the GS realm.

To rephrase what you said, if I may, what you are talking about is the difference between GS Native and GS Client... the latter means that we aren't really using the GS networking system at all... the former means we rely on it. Huge difference from a design and development perspective.

Conitec, from my POV, should decide to be one or the other!

Despite my endorsement of Epislon's POV, I agree that we should stay OT and talk about solutions, not problems.

Thanks for keeping us on track, Firo.

Please keep in mind that the priority of new functions only depends on you, the users. The more people create MP apps, the faster we'll implement new MP functions. If on the other hand only few people create even small MP apps with the current functions - which may be not the fastest, but which work well - further MP features have not the highest priority. People who can't create working apps with the current version won't have any advantages from new features.

The amount of Multiplayer apps is a function of both
-the skill/determination od the users
-the functionality of the engine

Right now it suffers both.

Think about that is might be also possible that the
mentioned lack of functionality also made the multiplayer
community not to grow?

So , the list so far (If I remember the other posts ) :
- Server to server communication
- Lobby system
- A solution to the problem I described (Unnamed )
- File transfer (Not a priority , IMHO)

Did I miss something ?
Short list , but vital to not only MMO but Multiplayer in general.
Of course , we can all add stuff thats not nececary , so lets focus on what is really needed Anyone else ?

Ummmm... no? The way game development works, the more MP functionality an engine has, the more MP developers it will attract... not the other way around. Or is it Conitec's opinion that MP may just be a "passing fad" and thus a waste of time to encourage?



As I and others have tried to tell you time and time again... GS MP does not work well.... this is the reason the MP community is so small. The gross security flaw of "create a dummy GS app and crash any GS server" should be enough to prove that point.