Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Status of xfire. Client/server 3d.
- To: (BENJAMIN THOMAS KETTERIDGE)
- Subject: Re: Status of xfire. Client/server 3d.
- From: KARIM SANJABI <>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: , crossfire (at) ifi.uio.no
- In-Reply-To: <> from "BENJAMIN THOMAS KETTERIDGE" at Oct 10, 94 10:41:35 am
>
> Karim did suggest:
> > I was also thinking
> >of redoing the interface, make it 3D. Much like Ulitma Underworld
> >or Doom.
> There are two major pitfalls with this idea.
> 1) 3D would be _much_ slower than the present (just think how much
> more you have to do to calculate line-of-sight in 3D!!)
Wrong. The main problem is in the current xfire, you are sending
all the X crap over the network. I don't think that many of you
on the list have a good understanding of how fast good client
server code can be. (I know many of you do however...) Check
out Netrek if you have any doubts about it being done. A typical
client to server netrek connection generates about a meg of traffic
in a bit over an hour (if I recall correctly).
As others have stated, the 3D part depends on the engine that is
running it and the client. With the move to client/server, if done
right, writing a (DOS/MAC/amiga/C64/whatever) client should really
not be *that* hard.
> 2) games like Doom get banned for their _IMMENSE_ network loading!!!
> (crossfire almost suffered the same fate, but for the factthat not
> many people actually play it here, and I managed to get root to
> agree to out of hours playing only!)
>
As Tyler stated, the first implementation of netdoom was messed up. It
is much better know, and dosen't impact the network nearly as much.
> However, the client/server would be an enhancement to the n-th degree,
> but would also mean that it would be even longer until the game was
> stable!!!
>
> Ben.
>