On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM, BGB <cr88...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Running on a cluster is very different between having all the >> intelligence on the individual clients. As far as I can tell, MMOs by and >> large run most of the simulation on centralized clusters (or at least >> within the vendor's cloud). Military sims do EVERYTHING on the clients - >> there are no central machines, just the information distribution protocol >> layer. >> > > yes, but there are probably drawbacks with this performance-wise and > reliability wise. >
There are some security and performance drawbacks. It would be easy to `cheat` any of the simulation protocols used by military sims. But there isn't much motive to do so; it isn't as though you win virtual items to sell on e-bay. Some computations are many times redundant. But it's good enough, and the extensibility and interop advantage are worth more than efficiency would be. > > now, why, exactly, would anyone consider doing rendering on the server?... > Ask the developers of Second Life ;). They basically `stream` polygons and textures to the player, continuously, improving the resolution of your view if you aren't moving too quickly. Unfortunately, you have this continuous experience of it always being somewhat awful during normal movement. (In general, that's what eventual consistency is like, too.) > > ironically, all this leads to more MMOs using client-side physics, and > more FPS games using server-side physics, with an MMO generally having a > much bigger problem regarding cheating than an FPS. > If you ensure deterministic physics, it would be a lot easier to transparently spot-check players for cheating. But I agree it is a very difficult problem, unless you can control the player's hardware. > >> though Capt. Kirk's "I don't believe in the no win scenario" line comes >> to mind >> > Same here. ;) > it is not clear that client-to-client would lead to necessarily all that > much better handling of latency either, for that matter. > Client-to-client usually does improve latency since you skip an intermediate communication step. There are exceptions to prove the rule, though - e.g. if you have control over routing or can put servers between the clients. Regards, Dave -- bringing s-words to a pen fight
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
