🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Number of Players vs. Latency
Author
I''m new to network programming and have stumbled upon a concern that really gets to me involving player load. I assume that player load can be directly related to the amount of information which needs to be sent across the line times the number of players. i.e. The smaller the packets, the more people a server could handle.
So, the question: How would one program for 100+ pepole on a server? I don''t know if that''s a reality for a single server or not. Could someone please shed some light on this for me?
Thanks a bunch.
~Fractile81
it depends on your design. the server will have to be able to handle the inbound data from 100 clients but clients do not.
you can have it set up where your game environment can be divided into sectors. clients only need to recieve infomation about the other clients in the same sector.
its all about your design
you can have it set up where your game environment can be divided into sectors. clients only need to recieve infomation about the other clients in the same sector.
its all about your design
Author
I understand that design is a big thing. But that''s my underlying concern: can one computer/server handle managing several sectors, or zones with sectors?
That all depends on how much stuff you do on the server. Provided you have enough ram you can load all those zones and do server side checks. With a very efficent server you can problem run a hundred players off a medium speed sdsl line (in the 500/500) range. Running 200 players would require about 1Mbps (approaching T1 speeds).
You wouldn''t want a ton of zones with only 100 people either.
You wouldn''t want a ton of zones with only 100 people either.
Author
Thanks for the input...
Ok, here''s where I''m at: I''m looking at about a 128 player load for a 3D shoot-''em-up genre. I''ve been talking to my friends about whether this is feasible as well and they offered that I would need a dedicated T1 line for such a thing. Or, instead of just one system, get a couple and use a switch (obviously requiring a design to fit such a thing).
Now, with all of this, can I still make it with WinSock or is there something else which would work better? Aslo, will there be a difference run-time wise (since, obviously, I want this thing going fast) between writing the server with a Win32 GUI in comparison to a DOS shell app (i.e. the dedicated UT server)? Would WinSock still work in a DOS shell?
Again, thanks for any and all input! It helps a lot!
Ok, here''s where I''m at: I''m looking at about a 128 player load for a 3D shoot-''em-up genre. I''ve been talking to my friends about whether this is feasible as well and they offered that I would need a dedicated T1 line for such a thing. Or, instead of just one system, get a couple and use a switch (obviously requiring a design to fit such a thing).
Now, with all of this, can I still make it with WinSock or is there something else which would work better? Aslo, will there be a difference run-time wise (since, obviously, I want this thing going fast) between writing the server with a Win32 GUI in comparison to a DOS shell app (i.e. the dedicated UT server)? Would WinSock still work in a DOS shell?
Again, thanks for any and all input! It helps a lot!
Winsock can be used in a console appilcation. Or you could use a custom window that is a console. Either way, it works.
As for this all being feasible... Take a look at the current line up of 3d shooters. Notice any with 128 players? It's not just the server hardware, you also have to consider that even high speed users (ie cable/dsl) still only get about 100K/s consistently. (It's my own avearge based on 4 sevices I know) Why do you think UT and Quake 3 servers only run about 32 players? If you really optimize and manage to get optimum networking conditions you might be able to puch 64 players, but I wouldn't count on it. Of course, if you use zoning it's a different matter, but then again, what do you do if all 128 players decide to be in one zone? Zoning isn't really a good idea for and FPS.
Follow you idea, but remember reality =)
"So much fun, so little time."
~Michael Sikora
Edited by - guardian_light on October 15, 2001 2:02:39 PM
As for this all being feasible... Take a look at the current line up of 3d shooters. Notice any with 128 players? It's not just the server hardware, you also have to consider that even high speed users (ie cable/dsl) still only get about 100K/s consistently. (It's my own avearge based on 4 sevices I know) Why do you think UT and Quake 3 servers only run about 32 players? If you really optimize and manage to get optimum networking conditions you might be able to puch 64 players, but I wouldn't count on it. Of course, if you use zoning it's a different matter, but then again, what do you do if all 128 players decide to be in one zone? Zoning isn't really a good idea for and FPS.
Follow you idea, but remember reality =)
"So much fun, so little time."
~Michael Sikora
Edited by - guardian_light on October 15, 2001 2:02:39 PM
quote:
Zoning isn''t really a good idea for and FPS.
Actually, all FPS do "zoning" as far as network traffic is concerned: more particularly, they only send information about those other players who are in the client''s PVS (Potentially Visible Set). The PVS is a not 100% reliable but very fast and rather good method for determining visibility.
cu,
Prefect
One line of sourcecode says more than a thousand words.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement