Thats where I come inBRAINLESS wrote:Exactly, the documentation could do with an update. They are working on it though! Too bad the microsoft compiler doesn't work for you. Please let me know how GCC performs, if it needs changes I'll see what I can do - but I won't be able to do much before I go on vacation.
Development time for a full-featured engine?
- Levia
- Halfling
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:56 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Deamon
- Gremlin
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:01 am
What is the difference betwin managers, factories and new ?BRAINLESS wrote: It is different in how objects are created though, Ogre has a lot of factories and managers and in yake you can do new *() a lot more.
Any Windows release is worse in it's own way. Well there are several reasons why i still use it:Why are you using WinME (not trying to convince you to use XP or anything, just wondering), as far as I know it's the worst windows release ever?
1. Once i got used to an OS and its issues and learned workarounds i find it very discomfortable to switch to a new OS and then start to relearn. OSes are very low on my priority list. I always find something else to deal with instead of going in to new OSes. That is the reason why i still haven't switched to Linux.
2. I heavily distrust to microsoft. Microsoft is the axis of evil If Bill could he would send all open source developers to guantanamo. After installing WinME i said not further than this.(But in the future i will have to get a new one but then it will have to coexist with Linux). I'm just very reluctant to use anything from them. You cannot serve to two Lords
3. The quality of microsoft products sucks.
4. Microsoft seeks to spy and monitor your system and taking it over.
I will spare you with more reasons.
But lets say becose i find microsoft unappealing
I think LGPL is sufficient for an commercial sim ins't it ?We could always release it under a special license for you if need be. Everything we've got is made by us. Keep in mind yake is released under the LGPL as well as custom licenses you can request from them, maybe you could use one.
Slightly i see a similar tendency in me in recent times, but only slightly.I used to not celebrate anything and never go out too - but it's too much fun not to now
Uhh, you still wasn't on my site.How many people are on your team?
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
But right now only 3 people that i would consider as active.
I couldn't bear so long wihtout my computer except when it would be a training trip.Actually, I meant vacation... I'll be in Turkey for a week starting on saturday (with no computer nearby, luckily)
Deamon
IMPERIAL U-FLOTILLA 1914-1918
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
- Deamon
- Gremlin
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:01 am
No problem. I'm not much coding at the moment anyway. And for the OGRE tuts GCC should be fine. I will be bussy with them for months anyway, i think.BRAINLESS wrote:Exactly, the documentation could do with an update. They are working on it though! Too bad the microsoft compiler doesn't work for you. Please let me know how GCC performs, if it needs changes I'll see what I can do - but I won't be able to do much before I go on vacation.
And LEvia is there too
IMPERIAL U-FLOTILLA 1914-1918
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
- Levia
- Halfling
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:56 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Yup it is.Deamon wrote:I think LGPL is sufficient for an commercial sim ins't it ?BRAINLESS wrote: We could always release it under a special license for you if need be. Everything we've got is made by us. Keep in mind yake is released under the LGPL as well as custom licenses you can request from them, maybe you could use one.
- BRAINLESS
- Goblin
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
This is basic C++ stuff, good that you ask it at the beginning of your coding careerDeamon wrote:What is the difference betwin managers, factories and new ?BRAINLESS wrote: It is different in how objects are created though, Ogre has a lot of factories and managers and in yake you can do new *() a lot more.
- Managers create new objects, keep track of them and clean them up when the manager is destroyed. If you want to destroy the object earlier, you have to do it through the manager.
- Factories create objects, but forget about them instantly. You have to take care of destroying the object manually.
- With new I mean: SceneNode * sn = new SceneNode(); You create the object, you have to keep track of it, and if you ever want it destroyed... yes, you have to do it
Hey that's alright, I don't like microsoft either. It's just that there is no worthy alternative to Visual Studio on Linux - and many games don't run on Linux either. Before people start ranting about it, I have tried eclipse, code::blocks, Anjuta, KDevelop and probably some more... only Anjuta got close and even that was still a long way from competitive with Visual Studio, in my opinion.Any Windows release is worse in it's own way. Well there are several reasons why i still use it:Why are you using WinME (not trying to convince you to use XP or anything, just wondering), as far as I know it's the worst windows release ever?
1. Once i got used to an OS and its issues and learned workarounds i find it very discomfortable to switch to a new OS and then start to relearn. OSes are very low on my priority list. I always find something else to deal with instead of going in to new OSes. That is the reason why i still haven't switched to Linux.
2. I heavily distrust to microsoft. Microsoft is the axis of evil If Bill could he would send all open source developers to guantanamo. After installing WinME i said not further than this.(But in the future i will have to get a new one but then it will have to coexist with Linux). I'm just very reluctant to use anything from them. You cannot serve to two Lords
3. The quality of microsoft products sucks.
4. Microsoft seeks to spy and monitor your system and taking it over.
I will spare you with more reasons.
But lets say becose i find microsoft unappealing
Yeah I'm pretty sure it is, though GPL does not mean it 's not fit for commercial applications either! GPL just forces you to release the sourcecode, which is not a bad thing. LGPL does not force you to that. It's just as easy to sell open source games as closed source games... there's just very few companies who do it.I think LGPL is sufficient for an commercial sim ins't it ?
I did have a glance, but didn't actually read it, sorry. I see there's a members page with 4 people on it, of which 3 are apperantly active.Uhh, you still wasn't on my site.How many people are on your team?
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
But right now only 3 people that i would consider as active.
Eh, this is a holiday, it's meant for drinking beers, looking at women, going out and having hangovers! Hangovers and coding don't mix (very well)!I couldn't bear so long wihtout my computer except when it would be a training trip.
Proud member of the OpenFRAG Game Development community
- Deamon
- Gremlin
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:01 am
Cool, thanks for the info.BRAINLESS wrote: This is basic C++ stuff, good that you ask it at the beginning of your coding career
- Managers create new objects, keep track of them and clean them up when the manager is destroyed. If you want to destroy the object earlier, you have to do it through the manager.
- Factories create objects, but forget about them instantly. You have to take care of destroying the object manually.
- With new I mean: SceneNode * sn = new SceneNode(); You create the object, you have to keep track of it, and if you ever want it destroyed... yes, you have to do it
Is it so bad to work with the mentioned free IDE's ?It's just that there is no worthy alternative to Visual Studio on Linux - and many games don't run on Linux either. Before people start ranting about it, I have tried eclipse, code::blocks, Anjuta, KDevelop and probably some more... only Anjuta got close and even that was still a long way from competitive with Visual Studio, in my opinion.
Yeah I'm pretty sure it is, though GPL does not mean it 's not fit for commercial applications either! GPL just forces you to release the sourcecode, which is not a bad thing.
I wouldn't like to be forced to release my code but keep the control about what is being released and what not. Especialy so when i have a longterm tie to an engine. Who knows what will come to my mind or what a future situation will require. So i would preffer an non restrictive licence.
Hey, have you seen my Gallery ?I did have a glance, but didn't actually read it, sorry. I see there's a members page with 4 people on it, of which 3 are apperantly active.
But that's not all what we have. We have much more in the sleve already.
Well, enjoyEh, this is a holiday, it's meant for drinking beers, looking at women, going out and having hangovers! Hangovers and coding don't mix (very well)!
Deamon
IMPERIAL U-FLOTILLA 1914-1918
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/heinrich/main.htm
Current stage: 2 - pre alpha
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
No, you just need to understand going in, that they are not Visual Studio, which far and away is the easiest and most intuitive and productive development environment available.Deamon wrote:Is it so bad to work with the mentioned free IDE's ?It's just that there is no worthy alternative to Visual Studio on Linux - and many games don't run on Linux either. Before people start ranting about it, I have tried eclipse, code::blocks, Anjuta, KDevelop and probably some more... only Anjuta got close and even that was still a long way from competitive with Visual Studio, in my opinion.
LGPL != GPL -- that's why there is a "Lesser" GPL, so that you do not have to release source code. Also, BSD, MIT, CC, zlib, and any number of other licensing schemes that are far less restrictive than GPL.Yeah I'm pretty sure it is, though GPL does not mean it 's not fit for commercial applications either! GPL just forces you to release the sourcecode, which is not a bad thing.
I wouldn't like to be forced to release my code but keep the control about what is being released and what not. Especialy so when i have a longterm tie to an engine. Who knows what will come to my mind or what a future situation will require. So i would preffer an non restrictive licence.
Considering the way they built MoM was with zoning you could technically string as many systems together as you want.xavier wrote: "Massive" is more defined by the server infrastructure required to support it. 128 is still just "multiplayer" -- you can do simple message-forwarding with a single server and 128 players and pull off mostly a peer-to-peer setup.
Ok now you're just getting rediculous. Yes I believe that WoW does have the chance of having 100,000 simulataneous connections (although most likely only at prime time) but since you're throwing EQ in the mix I have to laugh. The full SOE station doesn't hit 100,000 simultaneous connections and there are a hell of a lot of games. So I guess according to your definition the only "massive" game is work of warcraft. Although you're right about the infrastructure, when I was down there in Diego in January I have to say it's pretty cool."Massive" is going to be more along the lines of 100,000 simulataneous connected clients participating in the same game world. This is the scale that EQ and WoW operate on, and the server infrastructure is simply unbelieveable.
Also your 100,000 simultaneous connections with WoW is quite flawed and completely one sided to try and prove whatever point you're wanting to make. It is more like 10 different data centers having 10000 simultanous connections each. On top of that you are clustered down and most likely a single main system will completely top out near 2000-3000 connections (for the busiest server farms).
Also your 128 connections per server (zone) is not massive is quite hilarious to say the least, as that is EXACTLY how Everquest was architected in the beginning (although it ideally held 150 it could obviously hold 250-300 in a zone just lagged) and was just a bunch of zoned servers strung together forwarding connections. The funny part is that it is exactly how the majority of MMO servers have been built over time and we are only now seeing true clustering. And don't try mentioning WoW for that because their model is as dated as everybody elses. They have a massive amount of hardware for their massive amount of concurrent connections, it's just that now with systems being as powerful as they are and having access to blades, etc you can hold a lot more concurrent connections on a single box (zone). Asherons Call and a few others have differed by offering dynamic load balancing without zoning and it is a great technology that also has it's own cons and takes a lot longer to architect properly.
I worked with SOE on a new project and know how their systems work, the scalability, the hardware, etc. So I'm curious as to where you got all of these magical numbers and knowledge from?
EDIT: Sorry for the late reply I just saw this now and wanted to clear it up, although I see the thread has come back on track since the initial derailment
- Jerky
- Orc Shaman
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: Springville, Utah
- Contact:
That was the point I was trying to make as well. Linking clusters that can handle 10k a piece is all that is happening. The way xavier's argument sounds is that 100k simultaneous is the only definition he will accept. I was just pointing out that by that definition, his examples are not valid. Again, we should note that those clusters (for WoW) may be linked internally, but the game worlds are not linked, so that is not a 100k-player game world, and not masssive.Imperil wrote:Also your 100,000 simultaneous connections with WoW is quite flawed and completely one sided to try and prove whatever point you're wanting to make. It is more like 10 different data centers having 10000 simultanous connections each. On top of that you are clustered down and most likely a single main system will completely top out near 2000-3000 connections (for the busiest server farms).
As am (was) I.Imperil wrote:... So I'm curious as to where you got all of these magical numbers and knowledge from?
Better late than never. Its not often that I think I have a point (especially over someone as knowledgable as xavier), so I need all the help I can get when trying to prove it .Imperil wrote:Sorry for the late reply I just saw this now and wanted to clear it up, although I see the thread has come back on track since the initial derailment
P.S. Sorry again for the topic change .
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
Sorry we are fixating on numbers. Would it make you all feel better if I dropped a zero? How about 50,000? 20,000? Where is the magic number, guys?
That's the point, and I think we covered that earlier in the thread. Regardless, 1,000 is still not "massive", which is the point I have been trying to make (unsuccessfully it appears). 1,000 is actually reasonable with a single server depending on the type and amount of information being passed around.
The break point between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer" comes when you design your server infrastructure to scale across multiple servers seamlessly, allowing your server capacity to grow simply by adding additional hardware (and probably betwork bandwidth). In that way, 100,000 simultaneous connected clients is certainly possible, and even reasonable. Is it reasonable to have 100,000 players within a 1k x 1k area in your world? Probably not, but that is a different issue.
That's the point, and I think we covered that earlier in the thread. Regardless, 1,000 is still not "massive", which is the point I have been trying to make (unsuccessfully it appears). 1,000 is actually reasonable with a single server depending on the type and amount of information being passed around.
The break point between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer" comes when you design your server infrastructure to scale across multiple servers seamlessly, allowing your server capacity to grow simply by adding additional hardware (and probably betwork bandwidth). In that way, 100,000 simultaneous connected clients is certainly possible, and even reasonable. Is it reasonable to have 100,000 players within a 1k x 1k area in your world? Probably not, but that is a different issue.
- jacmoe
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 20570
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:13 am
- Location: Denmark
- x 179
- Contact:
You gave you a license to attack people?Jovani wrote:You mean you made that up? There isn’t any official rule stating that 100000 connections is the breaking point for MMO status? Wow that is shocking news I am stunt.
Who was the first to bring that mark and the defining point for MMO, I maybe wrong but I think it was you.
Try exchanging ideas instead of letting out sarcastic rants.
/* Less noise. More signal. */
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
-
- Gremlin
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:59 am
Xavier just says that is mmo because he writes such great code that he can make an MMO that large and not lagThat's the point, and I think we covered that earlier in the thread. Regardless, 1,000 is still not "massive", which is the point I have been trying to make (unsuccessfully it appears). 1,000 is actually reasonable with a single server depending on the type and amount of information being passed around.
No, it doesn't. You are confusing your terms. Are you saying that NONE of SOE's games are "massive"? Blizzards game is not massive but only a "multiplayer RPG"? By whos standards... just the ones you made up?xavier wrote:The break point between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer" comes when you design your server infrastructure to scale across multiple servers seamlessly, allowing your server capacity to grow simply by adding additional hardware (and probably betwork bandwidth). In that way, 100,000 simultaneous connected clients is certainly possible, and even reasonable. Is it reasonable to have 100,000 players within a 1k x 1k area in your world? Probably not, but that is a different issue.
It has nothing to do with being called "massive" there are two different methodologies and server designs that are both valid. There is a zoned/clustered server design and a seamless/distributed services design. BOTH are valid and have nothing to do with being called massive, they just scale very differently.
When you build a distributed services system you have a hardware pluggable system that allows to you quickly identify bottlenecks and remedy them with hardware. When you use a zoned design you have to actually build the game content to that in order to try keep various amounts of players spread out.
World of Warcraft is NOT distributed/seamless it is zone based completely, all of SOEs games are zone based, etc. You are actually calling the biggest MMOGs out right now "not massive"? The only games out using a distributed service architecture are Asherons Call, Lineage 2, There, Second Life, (Shadowbane was a seamless world BUT it was all done on one server so it doesn't apply here) and possibly a few others although they don't spring to mind. Don't try fooling yourself into thinking World of Warcraft is doing anything magical, it is completely zone based the very same as EQ/EQ2 but using larger zones and much higher end machines per zone.
I'm just really wondering about this "not massive" thing and how you are qualified to say that Blizzard and SOE's top MMOG games are classified as "not massive"?
I mean everyone that I have worked with in the industry building these types of games defines an MMOG just like the rest of the world... having a larger than normal amount of players connected (200+). I mean you can have your own opinion and make up your own little definitions, but once you start trying to push that on other people and make it sound like it is the common view (which is very far from the truth I've never heard this before) you are feeding people bad information.
- Jerky
- Orc Shaman
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: Springville, Utah
- Contact:
My whole argument with xavier is that by his definition, he says hobbyists cant make MMO's. Many examples have been given, and he keeps saying that those don't meet his criteria for being called "massive." I pointed out that by his definition, nothing is massive. He says that there still are some, gave a couple examples, and I pointed out that his info was incorrect. I am with Imperil here, and that was my point all along. I agree that xavier's opinion is his own, and its valid as an opinion, but it is not standard. As soon as you use your non-standard opinion to give people advice, you run the risk of giving bad advice, or advice that is not helping in any way. This all goes back to previous threads as well, so I apologize for the hijack, its just that we never finished .
- jacmoe
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 20570
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:13 am
- Location: Denmark
- x 179
- Contact:
Hobbyists cannot make MMOs - period.
With a project of that scale, you have to cross the line between hobbyist and professional. I am not saying you cannot do it in your spare time, it will just take longer.
Why don't you agree that you disagree and move on?
With a project of that scale, you have to cross the line between hobbyist and professional. I am not saying you cannot do it in your spare time, it will just take longer.
Why don't you agree that you disagree and move on?
/* Less noise. More signal. */
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
- Kentamanos
- Minaton
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:08 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Jerky
- Orc Shaman
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: Springville, Utah
- Contact:
Jovani, there is a difference between discussing things with someone of an opposing viewpoint and trying to make them look bad. I dont hate xavier and he doesnt hate me, we just disagree, and we both agree on that . He is opinionated, but aren't we all ? I know I am. You are using multiple threads to try to get back at him, its not worth it. Believe it or not, he does know what he is talking about. Just call it a day and cool off.
- jacmoe
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 20570
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:13 am
- Location: Denmark
- x 179
- Contact:
That's good news.Jovani wrote:I tell you what I will not post any more in these matters.
/* Less noise. More signal. */
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
Ogitor Scenebuilder - powered by Ogre, presented by Qt, fueled by Passion.
OgreAddons - the Ogre code suppository.
Quite honestly it isn't xavier looking silly at all, you're making yourself look stupid though. I respect Xavier, I read his points, and although I think his statement is incorrect and I disagree I will continue to respect him as a developer. I may not agree with him trying to push his opinion across to people as a standard (because it is actually quite the opposite), but he is completely entitled to have his own opinion.Jovani wrote:I am just using his own rhetoric, to show who silly you can looks when you think you are better than every body else because you think you are smarter or you are more educated.
So while I disagree with him on a point we are discussing... you are just posting to disagree with him explicitly... which is quite childish.
-
- Gremlin
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:59 am
- cybereality
- Hobgoblin
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:40 pm
- x 12
Ok, I finally get it. A hobbyist can't make a MMO because if they actually finished it they'd be pro. That makes so much sense now.jacmoe wrote:Hobbyists cannot make MMOs - period.
With a project of that scale, you have to cross the line between hobbyist and professional.
And about the whole 100k thing. I don't see how there could be a hard line like that. How exactly are you counting the simultaneous connections? 100K on a single server wouldn't exactly work. So is the number refering to the amount of users on the entire network, although not connected in the same zone? How many simultaneous users must be in each zone for it to be massive? Take a game like CounterStrike for example. I'm sure there have been points where 100,000 users were all playing the game, albiet on seperate servers. Would this be concidered "massive." What about 100,000 people all playing the same single player game at the same time (like oblivion). Should that be concidered massive, assuming each zone was only one user. I am not suggesting that be concidered a true MMO, but as an extreme it shows a hole in the whole arguement. So basically there is no such thing as a MMO. Its all just media hype from the PR guys at Blizzard and SOE. MMOs don't really exist. </sarcastic>
// cybereality
- BRAINLESS
- Goblin
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
This thread seems to have a will of its own, it's offtopic more often then it's ontopic
I'll be away starting 3 hours from now so I'll read this one when I get back, good luck Deamon!
I'll be away starting 3 hours from now so I'll read this one when I get back, good luck Deamon!
Proud member of the OpenFRAG Game Development community