BGB wrote:
Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a
military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world
behavior is more important, and network latency matters for the
extreme real-time stuff (e.g., networked dogfights at Mach 2), but
other than that, IP networks, gaming class PCs at the endpoints,
serious graphics processors. Also more of a need for
interoperability - as there are lots of different simulations,
plugged together into lots of different exercises and training
scenarios - vs. a MMORPG controlled by a single company.
ok, so basically a heterogeneous MMO.
and distributed
reading some stuff (an overview for the DIS protocol, ...), it seems
that the "level of abstraction" is in some ways a bit higher (than
game protocols I am familiar with), for example, it will indicate the
"entity type" in the protocol, rather than, say, the name of, its 3D
model.
Yes. The basic idea is that a local simulator - say a tank, or an
airframe - maintains a local environment model (local image generation
and position models maintained by dead reckoning) - what goes across the
network are changes to it's velocity vector, and weapon fire events.
The intent is to minimize the amount of data that has to be sent across
the net, and to maintain speed of image generation by doing rendering
locally.
nothing obvious comes to mind for why it wouldn't scale, would
probably just split the world across multiple servers (by area) and
have the clients hop between servers as needed (with some
server-to-server communication).
There's been a LOT of work over the years, in the field of distributed
simulation. It's ALL about scaling, and most of the issues have to do
with time-critical, cpu-intensive calcuations.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
