It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Come on guys ... Shadow Physics ... I mean ...Babuinix said:There's criticism and there's nitpicking for the sake of hating on the game.
Oh I should have written "at leaast" 6 because the cubes could be vary in size and I can surround every one with minimum of 6 others (i.e. merge the 9 on top, the 9 on bottom, 3 on the left and 3 on the right and you have 6 cubes surrounding) thats what it makes so complicated > the size calculationCryptoCrow said:You actually need to talk to 26 other instances/servers/areas if you change the size of one 3D area (assuming it's a cube in the center of 27 cubes).Turrican187 said:T'is isn't working this way.MaxBacon said:The game already supports 50 per instance, and as it is known the servers are capable the problem that overwhelms performance so much lies on the client being overwhelmed by updates (the lack of culling), and the needed streaming tech that is a fundamental optimization to handle its scale better.WalkinGlenn said:On another note, and in an attempt to try and get back on topic.. Personally I never believed for a second that this game would be able to support even close to a hundred "on grid" or instance, whatever you wanna call it, let alone a thousand... or thousands.
So let's say Stanton gets done, even if 50 per instance remain, all Stanton needs is being split in 20 areas with their own server that it would allow up to 1000 people in that solar system.
So it's not as far-fetched as you seem to think.
The only counter is if too many people try to go to the same place, GW2, for example, solved that by adding temporary overflow instances.
Your 50 pocket dimensions have to talk to each other in 3 dimensions so you need to contact 6 other Pocket dimensions (assuming they are cube like shaped) to render a picture. and now the 1000 players now all decide to go to one place. you need to dynamic rearrange your pocket dimensions and with changing one you need to change the 6 adjacted, too.
While changing the size you may not loose any data like what if a player just changed pocket dimension and the pocket dimension shrinked so he is back into his old pocket dimension.
This is working in a 2D environment but there is no server mesh that can dynamically pass data for this in 3D.
It would need a team of network professionals that are only dedicated to this problem to solve it and a couple of years.
There are 26 adjacent cubes not 6.
I agree with you, the technology is nice as a theory but most likely not ever going to be reality.
The amount of data that needs to be moved between instances/areas/servers if just one of the instances is resized is going to be a real problem even if the servers are in the same cluster.
The logic to make this all happen without the users noticing is something even the best network engineers will have a problem with.
I don't even want to think about all the implications this has on client performance.
Yes, all this drama seems to scream that it should not be dismissed, there is a case that needs to be taken care of.TiamatRoar said:Normally American motions to dismiss are just like the Europe ones you described. The type of response that is CiG's response is quite rare.Turrican187 said:I am very astounded how rough the tone is in the USA on a simple Motion to Dismiss.Babuinix said:
And that they are laying so many cards on the table before it goes to court.
In europe you file amotion to dismiss only for obvious stuff (accusations beyond a contract runtime (time) or my Wife put a spell on me (rather unlikely)). But Amerika seems to want a show for everything.
The general theory is that CiG is taking this tone more for the sake of the backers and keeping up backer confidence (and thus, funding) than for the lawsuit. Like I said earlier, I'm pretty sure FKKS gave up on the motion to dismiss succeeding a while ago already and just let CiG run with whatever they want for this response, because CiG's latest response almost literally says "COME AT ME, BRO!" in several places (at several points, they basically say "And we can prove it if this goes to court", etc), which is the OPPOSITE of what you're asking for when you ask for a motion to dismiss.
“So our biggest hold back on VR really is we’re still doing so much base-level refactoring and the engine, the renderer, we’ll be starting on Vulcan, DX12 refactor as well and we’re doing so much optimization that we feel like we’ve got to get that done first and get the base level engine stuff more finished, not constantly working and refactoring, and then we’ll put VR [in],” Roberts said.
“Because we actually had VR support quite a while ago but, of course, as we change stuff it breaks and then, your engine team, are they going to go and fix the VR stuff or that new procedural planet system that everyone can experience. So that’s what’s always happened in those situations but once all that stablizes of course, yes, we’re going to go and put that support in .”