More DOOM 3

With QuakeCon getting underway, there are some QuakeCon Doom 3 Multiplayer Impressions on HomeLAN Fed describing the multiplayer action on tap at the show. Since some of the first comments on the story below concern physics, here is what this update has to say on the subject: "Rag doll physics was in evidence during the Doom III multiplayer demo, including objects like boxes and barrels that could be moved by weapons fire and a dead body hanging from the ceiling during one portion of the level that could also be moved by weapons fire. Some glass windows could also be smash but unlike most glass in games the window didn’t shatter all at once but rather in pieces."
View : : :
121.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 19, 2003, 00:10
indiv
 
Re: No subject Aug 19, 2003, 00:10
Aug 19, 2003, 00:10
 indiv
 
I've read mixed things about it. Some say it is synced to the slowest player, but that doesn't make sense. I'm more inclined to believe that it works by everyone sending their data to everyone else, rather than just a central server.

I have no idea how id has implemented the game, but I just can't see them (or anyone) making a game that synchronizes to the slowest player. I guess people are associating peer to peer with the original Doom, but remember that Doom was made a long time ago, and it wasn't even made for TCP/IP networks.

I mean, think about peer-to-peer networking for a minute. What's the difference between your computer receiving the game data from a server, or from other clients? Either way, your computer is sitting there listening for incoming data. When it gets the data, it updates the game state, and if it misses the data, or the data is slow, it attempts some sort of prediction. Who cares if the data is coming from one place (a central server) or from 3 different places (peer-to-peer model)? Why should your computer or your connection slow down because one of the clients is slow? Just like with the current client-server model... a server won't sit there forever waiting for the data from all the clients. In that case, if someone lagged out, the server would stop. I just don't see why a client would care if it's getting data from a server or from other clients. Does it really make a difference whether the server synchronizes the data for your computer instead of your computer synchronizing the data itself?

Maybe I'm missing something--I don't really know what id is doing, so any intelligent discussion is welcome.

Either way, Why is that better than client-server model? What happens to cheat prevention when there is no server than can do validation?

Oh yeah, and as for this point, I'm not too sure. I've been thinking that the peer-to-peer model for Doom3 is actually going to be the basis for the next id project, except the next project will be on a much larger scale. A game that can support tons of players because for each player that joins, the game gets more processing power (although perhaps uses more bandwidth!).

And as for cheat protection, I guess it's a glass is half empty/full thing. You say that there's no server that can do validation ... I say that in a peer-to-peer game of 4 people, there's 3 servers that can do the validation! Depends on how they've implemented it, I suppose... With my outlook, you'd have a problem with 2 people. I certainly don't want to see a return of the days where a game would stop because one of the players got out of synch. heh

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
2.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
4.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
89.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
6.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
8.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
9.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
10.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
11.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: hmmm
12.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
13.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
14.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
15.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
35.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
36.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
37.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
39.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
38.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
40.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
42.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: hmmm
41.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
47.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: hmmm
62.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
43.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
44.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
45.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
46.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
48.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
49.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         I don't get it...
52.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: I don't get it...
56.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
57.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
16.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
67.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
69.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
72.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
117.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
119.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
3.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
5.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
7.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
17.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
18.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
21.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
23.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: Gibs?
24.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: Gibs?
25.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: Gibs?
26.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     HL1
27.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: HL1
30.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: HL1
34.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: HL1
31.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Pulled?
32.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: Pulled?
28.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: Gibs?
29.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: Gibs?
33.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: Gibs?
82.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: Gibs?
83.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
      Re: Gibs?
84.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
       Re: Gibs?
93.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
        Re: Gibs?
98.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
         Re: Gibs?
19.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
20.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
22.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
50.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
51.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
53.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
54.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
55.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
58.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
59.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: hmmm
60.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
61.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
65.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
73.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
63.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
64.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
66.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
68.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
70.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
71.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
74.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
75.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
76.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
77.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
78.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
79.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
85.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
86.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
95.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
99.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
100.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
          Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
101.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
           Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
102.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
           Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
103.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
            Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
104.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
             Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
105.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
              Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
80.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
88.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
81.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
87.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
90.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
91.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
94.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
92.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
96.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
97.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
106.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
107.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
108.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
109.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
110.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
111.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
112.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
113.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
114.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
115.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
116.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
118.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
120.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
 121.
Aug 19, 2003Aug 19 2003
    Re: No subject
122.
Aug 19, 2003Aug 19 2003
     Re: No subject
123.
Aug 20, 2003Aug 20 2003