New Spring Lobby - Page 2

New Spring Lobby

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

What do you think?

The spring lobby is just fine the way it is.
0
No votes
A lot more new players would get into spring with more stable lobby software.
9
43%
Writing a new lobby program is a very bad idea - it would divide the spring community too much.
2
10%
Writing a new lobby program is a good idea, and i would use it in place of the current buggy software.
10
48%
 
Total votes: 21

User avatar
fobbah
Posts: 34
Joined: 30 May 2005, 04:40

Post by fobbah »

ack ignore this, double post
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 »

So far it looks like Java and Python are the languages being used. I just need to figure out my layout issues, because currently most of the stuff isn't aligned correctly. Its a real pain!

Either way, it should be cool having two lobby clients. However, it is expected that the netcode will change with our releases, because the idea is to allow spring players to talk to PheonixWorx players. We will see what happens though. =)
0 x

User avatar
WeaZ
Posts: 79
Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 01:30

Post by WeaZ »

fobbah it seems like ur doing alot of coding and ace is makin his look good and I like both but I wish you two would join together it seems fobbah is better at coding than ACE
ace dont take that wrong...
0 x

User avatar
fobbah
Posts: 34
Joined: 30 May 2005, 04:40

Post by fobbah »

I'm working on getting this client out as soon as possible weaz.. i'm experiencing a little trouble with my code for resolving the IP of the host over the IRC network, which is why i didnt release it today, but nothing that should cause any real trouble with a little work tonight. It already works, but i want to fix this to make it slightly more reliable.

And ace's lobby looks reasonably well done also, mine is probably the sloppiest job i've ever put out if you want to actually try to understand the source code :D, although it does work pretty well hehe.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1240
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Post by Tim Blokdijk »

WeaZ wrote:... it seems fobbah is better at coding ...
I really think you have no base to assume this.
And I think multiple implementations will have more benefits then drawbacks atm.
We can exchange the good idea's among the other implementation you see :-)
Resulting in far better lobby's overall.
The ├óÔé¼┼ôcompetition├óÔé¼┬Ø will keep people focused.
And at some point one lobby will become dominant in features, users and developer support and be the default.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1240
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Post by Tim Blokdijk »

Tim Blokdijk wrote: I think multiple implementations will have more benefits then drawbacks atm.
We can exchange the good idea's among the other implementation you see :-)
Resulting in far better lobby's overall.
The ├óÔé¼┼ôcompetition├óÔé¼┬Ø will keep people focused.
And at some point one lobby will become dominant in features, users and developer support and be the default.
That was Tim Blokdijk the Strategic manager above...

----

The Tim Blokdijk that is investing time in the WxWidgets implementation might disagree with me. :wink:
0 x

User avatar
fobbah
Posts: 34
Joined: 30 May 2005, 04:40

Post by fobbah »

And I think multiple implementations will have more benefits then drawbacks atm.
We can exchange the good idea's among the other implementation you see
Resulting in far better lobby's overall.
The “competition” will keep people focused.
And at some point one lobby will become dominant in features, users and developer support and be the default.
Indeed, if i didnt have something else to measure up to, i'd probably do this lobby really half-arsed hehehe. But the fact of the matter is, the whole reason we're doing these lobbies is to create something that works better than what already exists, so it kinda drives me to do a good job on it.

I've got the first real implementation of the lobby 100% complete now. I want to improve a few interface things, and post an initial release tonight.

On the technical side, what i'm doing in the long term:
It relies on dcc connections in many places due to the imposed limits on message send-speeds & message size limits, as a dcc connection can send messages at an unrestricted rate & size in being a direct connection to the user. The advantage of this is that it will run on any irc server. The disadvantage is that the reliance on establishing many dcc connections could possibly result in some of the usual problems where routers & complex network setups are involved with which i'm sure you're all familiar.

Therefore, for my next version, i will probably implement an option where all information can be sent using normal private messages through the irc server, or use dcc, depending on say, a flag in the server's motd. Sending the messages through the server instead of dcc would require a specially configured irc server, else it would be tremendously slow, although it would still work, but the initial version is just for all irc servers, so it utilises dcc messaging by default.

Regardless of the slightly increased effort of establishing a dedicated central irc server with a specialised setup for this private messaging application of the lobby, the end result should be to more or less eliminate all problems involving routers etc permanently, which i think may be fantastic in making my client even more rugged and reliable :).
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 »

The only way to solve router issues entirely is to make it so that the server everyone connects to hosts the games. This works well if you have an extremely fast server. :twisted:

It works horribly if you don't have enough bandwidth though. That is why router issues probably can't be fixed, because you always need a central host. That central host needs to be accessable by all of the clients in the game. Although the lobby might not require setup of a router, the game itself does. Its best to catch those issues before you send everyone off to the game...only to discover that everyone desyncs and you are back in the lobby wondering what happened.

The above is one way to fix it, but there are other "less-secure" ways to do it. I prefer to have it more secure myself.
0 x

User avatar
fobbah
Posts: 34
Joined: 30 May 2005, 04:40

Post by fobbah »

i have a second option, because i'm building my lobby around IRC.
i'm going to effectively do the same thing, by sending those kinds of messages regarding host information through the IRC server rather than just the centralised host tracker :)
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 »

fobbah wrote:i have a second option, because i'm building my lobby around IRC.
i'm going to effectively do the same thing, by sending those kinds of messages regarding host information through the IRC server rather than just the centralised host tracker :)
Ya, but even if you do that, the game can't. People would get confused if they could host the game and people could join...and then they go into the game and it doesn't work. Unless the entire netcode structure was rewritten....we can't avoid the router issues that plague current games. The only other option is to use UPnP (Universal Plug and Play). It can configure your router for you more or less, but I don't know how to do that myself.

I suggest you go for speed in this case. You can't eliminate the router issues that exist without recoding the engine itself.
0 x

NMDANGE
Posts: 36
Joined: 27 Apr 2005, 16:35

Post by NMDANGE »

fobbah wrote:i have a second option, because i'm building my lobby around IRC.
i'm going to effectively do the same thing, by sending those kinds of messages regarding host information through the IRC server rather than just the centralised host tracker :)
Using IRC precludes the use of ranks and a galaxy. I'll be publishing the client protocol when I add support for it to the PW server. Any changes that would make things easier for the client could easily be incorporated into an updated version of the client<->server protocol.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”