Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2009 01:59:12 schrieb Zarel:
2009/3/18 Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net:
Make it 10, at least.
It could happen that the peer is under load, has some weird network setup
which needs more time, or whatever.
If the peer is _that_ under load, that peer isn't going to
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Dump from IRC:
Use a simple number (int), which we increment everytime we change the netcode
in an incompatible way.
Use a 2nd number in addition, which we increment if some compatible
enhancement happens. (And reset when we increment
2009/3/18 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com:
Right now, we only check on the version string. All the other stuff
we send isn't used.
I am also not sure about the time period to wait before we auto kick
someone. Right now, it is set to 7secs.
Logic is, player joins. Host sends version
On 3/18/09, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/18 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com:
Right now, we only check on the version string. All the other stuff
we send isn't used.
I am also not sure about the time period to wait before we auto kick
someone. Right now, it is set to
2009/3/18 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com:
Well, it does that in the console via LOG_ERROR... doing that in the
GUI... is not going to happen anytime soon.
Oh, come on. So the user just gets kicked out, no explanation why? It
_better_ go in the GUI.
Ha! Ok, then 4 secs. ;)
I thought
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2009 22:05:15 schrieb Zarel:
2009/3/18 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com:
Well, it does that in the console via LOG_ERROR... doing that in the
GUI... is not going to happen anytime soon.
Oh, come on. So the user just gets kicked out, no explanation why? It
_better_ go
2009/3/18 Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net:
Make it 10, at least.
It could happen that the peer is under load, has some weird network setup
which needs more time, or whatever.
If the peer is _that_ under load, that peer isn't going to be able to
play Warzone very well.
2009/3/18 bugs buggy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Freddie Witherden wrote:
I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
What do you do when switching to another VCS? That value must be
VCS-independent. And if I understand the git docs correctly (haven't really read
much of it :X)
Hi,
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 09:02 +0100, Kreuvf wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Freddie Witherden wrote:
I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
What do you do when switching to another VCS? That value must be
VCS-independent. And if I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
Another option: How about adding version checking stuff to 2.1.3 and then
releasing 2.1.3 + some non-netcode fixes? When releasing 2.1.3 add information
on our plans for 2.1.4 (see
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
There comes something to my mind:
If version checking is implemented in 2.1.3, it should be able to figure out
that 2.1.2 (and prior) do not support a versioned network
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
There comes something to my mind:
If version checking is implemented in 2.1.3, it should be able to figure out
On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:53, bugs buggy wrote:
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
There comes something to my mind:
If version
On 3/14/09, Christian Ohm chr@gmx.net wrote:
On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:53, bugs buggy wrote:
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 16:53:21 schrieb bugs buggy:
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
There comes something to my mind:
If version checking
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 16:53:21 schrieb bugs buggy:
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
bugs buggy wrote:
Anyone have any opinions on what should be
On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:14, bugs buggy wrote:
On 3/14/09, Christian Ohm chr@gmx.net wrote:
Could the version check be done in the lobby server?
I thought of that as well, but the GAMESTRUCT is a fixed size, and if
we changed it, it will do screwy things to pre 2.1.3 clients.
Dump from IRC:
Use a simple number (int), which we increment everytime we change the netcode
in an incompatible way.
Use a 2nd number in addition, which we increment if some compatible
enhancement happens. (And reset when we increment the major version.)
(That is in fact similar to what is done
Hi all,
Proposed constants:
NETCODE_VERSION_MAJOR=0, NETCODE_VERSION_MINOR=0, DATA_VERSION=2.2
(With the latter being the one used to concat mod version strings onto.)
I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
Furthermore there are a lot of changes we could make to the
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 02:11:56 schrieb bugs buggy:
I finally found the cause for people getting disconnected for no
apparent reason (especially in longer games).
I would go with releasing the fix in 2.2 and not in 2.1 then.
And we finally need some version checking code to prevent such
2009/3/13 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com:
I finally found the cause for people getting disconnected for no
apparent reason (especially in longer games).
The fix is simple enough, but the issue is, we can't stop 2.1.2 people
from connecting to 2.1.3 people. And since the main point of the
21 matches
Mail list logo
