Question about sockets

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Your talking about completely changing the client's way to handle packets, unless you have the source i wouldnt even attempt it, you would have to change so much code, and at the end of the day the way the source handles the packets is the bottle neck anyway, not the protocol. This is made even more obvious by the fact that so many games and applications still use TCP instead of UDP/RUDP. So even if you did change the protocol over somehow, which i honestly dont believe you will be able to do, the performance that you will gain will be made completely redundant by the fact that the source isnt upto handling the packets in the first place.

I see, thanks!

This thread can be closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Actually Heroes of Newerth uses BOTH tcp and udp, and just because a game was designed around using UDP doesnt mean that conquer could use it, i think that should be clear to everyone >_>"

The chat server and out-of-game networking is TCP; however the game servers are all UDP. What I was saying is that HoN has more traffic; and, if the client were somehow compatible, it could be done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _tao4229_ [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...] uses UDP. That should solve any questions on whether it's reliable enough for Conquer or not.

You really need to cut this trolling shit out. It's funny if someone else other than yourself understands it, but at the end of the day, nobody in the community is capable of that anymore. HoN is a real-time frame-synced game, the screen you see before you is practically streamed per say. If you missed a packet, you likely wouldn't notice it. I'm sure you've noticed everything "freezes" up when you lag.

Korvacs first post in this thread summed up all I had to say and I couldn't have put it better myself.

Before insulting your teacher, I highly suspect you've misinterpreted what he's saying; and that his answer is a much generalized one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _tao4229_ The chat server and out-of-game networking is TCP; however the game servers are all UDP. What I was saying is that HoN has more traffic; and, if the client were somehow compatible, it could be done.

Yes IF the client was compatible THEN you could use UDP quite happily, however it isnt so you cant >_>"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Yes IF the client was compatible THEN you could use UDP quite happily, however it isnt so you cant >_>"

Has the source of the conquer client ever been released or had information about how it's coded ever been leaked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spirited Has the source of the conquer client ever been released or had information about how it's coded ever been leaked?

EO Client, EO Server & CO2 AutoPatch. But CO2 is similar to EO, so it's a really good reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone You really need to cut this trolling shit out. It's funny if someone else other than yourself understands it, but at the end of the day, nobody in the community is capable of that anymore. HoN is a real-time frame-synced game, the screen you see before you is practically streamed per say. If you missed a packet, you likely wouldn't notice it. I'm sure you've noticed everything "freezes" up when you lag. Korvacs first post in this thread summed up all I had to say and I couldn't have put it better myself. Before insulting your teacher, I highly suspect you've misinterpreted what he's saying; and that his answer is a much generalized one.

No, people in this thread are saying that UDP is basically bad because you lose packets ALL THE TIME. You don't. HoN also verifies packets that both ends send in real time.

About everything "freezing up," in what game do things NOT freeze up when you lag?
Sorry if you think I'm insulting anyone, I'm not. If you think I'm trolling then I really don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _tao4229_ No, people in this thread are saying that UDP is basically bad because you lose packets ALL THE TIME. You don't. HoN also verifies packets that both ends send in real time. About everything "freezing up," in what game do things NOT freeze up when you lag? Sorry if you think I'm insulting anyone, I'm not. If you think I'm trolling then I really don't care.

Conquer? You can freely still jump around regardless of whether you're still connected to the server or not. +1

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone Before insulting your teacher, I highly suspect you've misinterpreted what he's saying; and that his answer is a much generalized one.

Well, I think I was clear with my question; if MMORPG such as World of Warcraft, Aion etc should use TCP or UDP, and his answer was pretty straight forward - UDP.

But yeah, clearly it wouldn't work for CO, but would be fun to see how much loss there would be actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _tao4229_ No, people in this thread are saying that UDP is basically bad because you lose packets ALL THE TIME. You don't. HoN also verifies packets that both ends send in real time. About everything "freezing up," in what game do things NOT freeze up when you lag? Sorry if you think I'm insulting anyone, I'm not. If you think I'm trolling then I really don't care.

Im saying UDP simply wouldnt work with conquer, not that its bad, the hells wrong with you >_>"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Im saying UDP simply wouldnt work with conquer, not that its bad, the hells wrong with you >_>"

I was assuming that we got over the fact that we'd have to modify CO to use UDP on the client. Forgot who we were talking with I guess.


As for your +1 I was actually inquiring on what "freezing up" meant to you. If anything this just goes to prove my point: if you lag in HoN, and you attempt to make a move command, you don't move forward. The server keeps waiting (not really waiting as you might say, bad wording, keeping for simplicity) for a move forward command until the client resends which could easily be done with Conquer. Packets for Conquer after the login phase are relatively order-independent as most systems are done in a question->response style.

In other words HoN is frame synced and Conquer is not. Oh wait,

Quote:

HoN is a real-time frame-synced game, the screen you see before you is practically streamed per say. If you missed a packet, you likely wouldn't notice it. I'm sure you've noticed everything "freezes" up when you lag. Where as Conquer is not (and if you missed a packet it'd be blatantly obvious).

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone In other words HoN is frame synced and Conquer is not. Oh wait,

Because I didn't read that obviously.

What I'm saying is that UDP can support Conquer's protocol. Although you're right, HoN may do their packets like that and ignore somethings (I'm fairly sure they don't keep resending chat packets each frame, but if you miss one they'll resend it - and yes, ingame chat is on the game server, as you can chatdisconnect from the chat server and still type ingame), they also do check packets they send back and forth to make sure they arrive. Any system like that could be implemented into Conquer and support the current packet/system protocol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _tao4229_ Because I didn't read that obviously. What I'm saying is that UDP can support Conquer's protocol. Although you're right, HoN may do their packets like that and ignore somethings (I'm fairly sure they don't keep resending chat packets each frame, but if you miss one they'll resend it - and yes, ingame chat is on the game server, as you can chatdisconnect from the chat server and still type ingame), they also do check packets they send back and forth to make sure they arrive. Any system like that could be implemented into Conquer and support the current packet/system protocol.

B/c we can rewrite the client & recompile it to handle if a UDP packet is missed.
inb4 reply about dll injection and it being possible, but nobody would actual do it

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfamousNoone B/c we can rewrite the client & recompile it to handle if a UDP packet is missed. inb4 reply about dll injection and it being possible, but nobody would actual do it

I was assuming we already did that, read above