Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51

Thread: Dedicated Servers or Increased Player Count on Console or Split Screen MP

  1. #31
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm hoping for one more player but wishing for 1-6. Via use of a dedicated console.

    So your telling me that when, for example, you have 5 players and 6 consoles. The host machine can't keep up with the block changes of all the players. The host machine has 2 jobs.

    1-Tell secondary machines what's there.
    2-Record what secondary machine just did.

    Most of the time 4 of the 5 will occupy the same area because when you talk about 4 player max (current) PVP is stupid so your working together.

    Theoretically most of it's work would be here because the one player that's running errands the host can say "I don't care". That players machine can track what they do. Then when they rejoin the others or someone goes to them, then the host requests update.

    It would be great if the GPU can offload the CPU because it's not going to be doing much on a dedicated server.

    I figure this is the cheaper option than getting companies like Nitrado to host rentable PS4 servers. But I think a lot of people would pay if that meant they weren't alienating one friend every time they play.

    How different is minecraft? That game allows 8 as I recall. Crafting is different but otherwise it has same basic block system.

    And I still think the world is too big.

  2. #32
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    8,619
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ReinQuest View Post
    How different is minecraft? That game allows 8 as I recall. Crafting is different but otherwise it has same basic block system.

    And I still think the world is too big.
    Minecraft doesn't have any SI calculations, and the texture resolution is quite a bit lower than 7 Days. It should also be noted that it runs on a different/simpler engine, and that the height map had to be reduced to get it to function like they wanted for the consoles.

    Additionally consider that the average map data size for Minecraft is only about 1GB, where a map for 7DTD can be closer to 30GB. Given that the Minecraft map is capable of a 50k diameter, and 7DTD only has a 10k diameter on PC, you can see where there is a huge difference is the amount of data being stored. (I forget what the console RWG map size is, but I think it's about 2.5k.)

  3. #33
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Textures shouldn't make a difference to a dedicated server. I'm no software engineer but a block is just an ID consisting of its spacial location and what material it is. The server doesn't render it. It just tracks what and where. It's on the maned consoles to render the block when the player is near them.

  4. #34
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    One other thing to note is that even if all it does is add one more person or none. A dedicated host console can help with host lag. As you say the game handles large data maps.

    If the host isn't rendering graphics. All players benefit by the world being track on a dedicated console.

    The setup at present is like a split screen but offloading the rendering onto players 2, 3, and 4.

  5. #35
    Hunter XxUnkn0wnxX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    0
    ok, i've been reading up on the comments. the way i see it. why not offload all the calculations and any other strenuous tasks on a dedicated server? why not break down the game to its core units and see what can be offloaded of the game consoles processor & Ram usage and instead loaded on an offsite server.

    and i agree with the point made where only map and graphical data should be rendered on the console, as for multiple player rendering in long vast distances apart, why not let the game to self optimise itself say if more ram usage is demanded etc, let the game to auto adjust rendering quality or amount of rendering. take distance terrain for example have the game reduce the view depth and field, make it smaller. say you are looking at a tall building or a wide building maybe only half of the building is showing and rest is covered with fog.

    as for my conclusion i believe this would be the best that could be done, try and optimise the game for offloading certain rendering or calculations onto a dedicated server setup or reduce the amount the game has to render depending on the amount of players.

    maybe do rendering in chunks? the player who is furthest away gets a blurry screen with a temp loading animation while the area they are in or going to is being rendered? (disable realtime rendering?, only render small sections of the area at a time, separated by loading animations from each area.)

    i'm pretty sure there are a lot of tricks out there to reduce rendering load...
    Last edited by XxUnkn0wnxX; 01-02-2018 at 07:12 AM.

  6. #36
    Fun Pimps Staff Gazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    In your brains. Thinking your thoughts.
    Posts
    9,022
    Rep Power
    2
    Whatever could be done or might work... Telltale would have to initiate and fund a project to make it happen. That's how this works.

    All the "wouldn't it be nice" in the world does not guarantee higher sales and that's what publishers are interested in.

    It was already kind of a risky game to begin with. There was no game like it on consoles and if nothing else, you gotta give Telltale credits for having the balls to try something new - which publishers basically never do.

    Given the hardware limitations 7DTD will never work well on consoles. It may even be cheaper to rewrite the game specifically for consoles which means much smaller maps and so on. The map/biomes on PC were designed to work well and look good - not to fit into console hardware and Microsony's rules and limitations.
    (e.g. a game is not allowed to use all the HDD space it wants even if you were okay with it)

  7. #37
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    As far as funding goes. Wasn't this a crowd fund? And even if it wasn't, why not crowd fund for the much needed console optimization.

    That right there would at least show that people like the game enough to want to see it get better.

    The games not going to do well if you have to keep telling the people that want to join you that there's no more room. People do want to play but turn them away enough and you got nothing in the end.

  8. #38
    Hunter XxUnkn0wnxX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    0
    @Gazz why did fun pimps go with Telltale games in the 1st place? why not have gone for a larger publisher which would have had larger funding & resources dedicated to 7D2D which in turn could of made this a bigger success.

  9. #39
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    8,619
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by XxUnkn0wnxX View Post
    @Gazz why did fun pimps go with Telltale games in the 1st place? why not have gone for a larger publisher which would have had larger funding & resources dedicated to 7D2D which in turn could of made this a bigger success.
    I believe Telltale came to the Pimps in this case.

    IMHO, it would be a lot bigger success if Unity was better optimized/developed for the console. The console hardware just can't keep up in the state it's in right now. It's not like this wasn't a known issue before hand either, as almost every Unity port to the console previous to 7DTD has sucked.

  10. #40
    Hunter XxUnkn0wnxX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SylenThunder View Post
    I believe Telltale came to the Pimps in this case.

    IMHO, it would be a lot bigger success if Unity was better optimized/developed for the console. The console hardware just can't keep up in the state it's in right now. It's not like this wasn't a known issue before hand either, as almost every Unity port to the console previous to 7DTD has sucked.

    i heard they haven't updated their engine for quite some time...
    read an article that about their "Ancient Technology Is Now Badly Hurting Their Games"

    i assume changing the games engine would be costly at this point of production?

    as a side-note, why didn't fun pimps build their own engine? not enough resources/funding? i know physics engines take a lot of time to build.
    Last edited by XxUnkn0wnxX; 01-05-2018 at 03:17 PM.

  11. #41
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    8,619
    Rep Power
    1
    For console it hasn't really been updated. On the PC side, Unity has been getting a lot of updates. In fact, the version TFP is updating a17 for on the PC has some really serious improvements to the voxel calculations. I have high hopes that they will be able to add a large number of features, yet be able to reduce the overall requirements for them.

    As for developing out of the box, when TFP first started this, Unity was still rather new. At that time, it was showing immense customization and for a new game engine, showed considerable promise. It still does in fact. It's way easier to use a built platform that will do what you wish, than to build another from the ground up. Cheaper too. For what they envisioned, at the time they were starting, Unity was the only real valid choice to use.

    Yes, changing engines would be very costly. You would basically have to re-build everything from the ground up. Which is why TTG/IG stuck with Unity on the console. One thing that is very possible though, is that the changes we saw for PC Unity in 2017 will be coming to the console version this year. If so, we're going to be seeing some serious changes in the future here. I would most definitely hope that it will allow for split-screen mp, and for mp games to host up to 8 players stock.

  12. #42
    Refugee
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Cannot handle?

    How in the world does a title such as Ark have that capability but 7DTD cannot?

    Your using the same Engine O_O... It it just lack of optimization? What is blocking this from happening? Even the ability to have a small server would be nice.. Doesn't have to be 100 players. Its just insane that a game As polished as Ark is visually is capable. I said visually we all know the ridiculous glitches.. But the system supports it perfectly.

  13. #43
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    8,619
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Snugglz View Post
    How in the world does a title such as Ark have that capability but 7DTD cannot?

    Your using the same Engine O_O... It it just lack of optimization? What is blocking this from happening? Even the ability to have a small server would be nice.. Doesn't have to be 100 players. Its just insane that a game As polished as Ark is visually is capable. I said visually we all know the ridiculous glitches.. But the system supports it perfectly.
    1. They are completely different engines. Arc runs on Unreal Engine 4. 7 Days to Die runs on Unity.

    2. Ark isn't a 3D Voxel game. The differences are covered in great detail here, and here.

  14. #44
    Hunter XxUnkn0wnxX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    0
    just to point out, i think unreal engine would of been the smarter choice, i have seen it used in a lot of popular games and and i have played many games that has used this engine since i was kid.

  15. #45
    Community Moderator SylenThunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Michigan, out in the sticks.
    Posts
    8,619
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by XxUnkn0wnxX View Post
    just to point out, i think unreal engine would of been the smarter choice, i have seen it used in a lot of popular games and and i have played many games that has used this engine since i was kid.
    But there's the rub. U4 isn't designed for a fully destructible voxel terrain. You would have to create a plugin for it. In the end, you're going to have an engine piggybacked onto an engine that is doing exactly what Unity is doing right now for the same or worse resource use.

    And again, a lot (as in 99.8%) of games before this are not true 3D voxel games. All of them have considerably less hardware and computing requirements because they are not actual 3D. I again refer you to the links in #2 of my above post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •