With all due respect, I mentioned the C++ app only because Fastlane told that he could not store handles outside the engine. Of course you can also store handles natively inside 3DGS.

But when you store the handles in a database you need a DLL anyway because Gamestudio has no built in database. But thats not Gamestudios fault, most engines have no own database and need an external database.

I am not experienced with MMOG so I cant in depth comment other issues, but the thing I know well is handles because I use them, and I can tell that there is no problem and no workaround required for storing handles.

Tobias, I'm not going to correct your latest post as I've already stated that handles are a minor issue compared to everything else so it's not worth it.

And I know that you are trying to help but please, as a favor to me, if you don't have experience with MP or MMOG, please don't comment on a MP/MMOG thread, ok?

How do you know Michael?
What Network experience do you bring to this thread?
What do you know that we don't?

I'm not being facetious here or trying to make a fool out of you, but if you claim that this is possible with NO PROOF, if you are saying this with no experience using the GS net engine, then you are blindly touting the GS line (as I did for far too long) without any real practical knowledge of what the engine is or isn't capable of.



It's possible to create a car bridge made out of balsa wood... but it wouldn't be practical. And thus if not practical, then balsa wood should not be advertised as "bridge capable".


This philosophy is like buying a new car under the premise that you can drive it off the lot but then finding out that you have to augment or replace the engine yourself before it will even run! If a car company did this to you, would you shrug it off and say "It isn't that big of a deal."?

If GS states "MMOG" on their features page, then I expect that GS is capable of MMOG, not GS + DLL, not GS + my own network.. native GS. That's how it's presented, that's what I expected, and that's where I was wrong.

And to make matters worse, the only way that several of us working on MMP have found to MAKE GS work is buy turning off just about every high level Network feature GS offers... so what does that say about GS and it's advertisement as a viable MP/MMOG solution?

I just want truth in advertising or better yet, more focused attention on the GS MP community and what all of us are saying: GS Net Engine needs replaced!

The fact is, if you are not happy with the GS Networkengine use the other free solutions (GSTNet, an own plugin). Of course if there stands on the Conitec page that you should be alble to create a MMOG with the native GS Networkengine and you aren't because this is technically impossible than thats bad, but I would say you have to live with it and do the best with your situation. And the best is to move to an other networksolution
Just think about Conitec has to implent a new networkengine, than a lot time will pass until they are ready with that. All the other more necessary stuff where no good solutions are available for free (a ingame mapeditor) will take much longer. And what can you do in this months of time? Nothing because you have to wait for the new networkengine.
The fact is that there are much more people out there who don't need a MMOG network engine but a ingame mapeditor and it would be unlogical if conitec wouldn't do what the bigger group of people wants. Sadly that's the truth so I would think about another solution (like GSTNet, or an own plugin).
And by the way, writing an own plugin won't take long. Trust me and you will be absolutly happy with that thing. Another positive point is that if you find a bug, you can solve it imediatly and don't have to wait for others to fix it

Dark_Samurai

Well besides that things like "enjoying" something are subjective, are you aware that with this argumentation you undermine the credibility of Conitec and the 3DGS feature list?

In this business that's very important and I guess you know quite some examples of where some promised features didn't work at all or just not to the extent it was promised and how that affected to producers behind it. As 3DGS especially is made for beginners in game development such an advertisment is even more dangerous as many won't realise that the given MMO capabilities are unrealistic (well at least that insane number of supported clients was removed)...

When getting back to topic I really dislike the apathy that is showing up (once again). I mean there's no need for "panicing", stopping all the development and focus completely on this task but I have little understanding for the ignorance towards certain facts. I mean that any 3DGS owner with network capability can easily crash ANY server running ANY 3DGS game is a quite tremendous bug and it hasn't been discovered for just a couple of weeks. Still I see no sign of any plan to get this fixed...

Then there's the discussion about the networking engine itself. Fastlane makes a lot of good points as to where the current system lacks things and what would be a proper solution. Still there's no real reaction besides bashing him and Conitec (i.e. JCL) also didn't really show up yet with at least something like "We'll be thinking about what you proposed."...

To conclude this, my opinion is that a 3rd party networking engine really should be integrated. The reason simply is that they won't just be better than a homebrew solution (because Conitec can't spent the same amount of time for only one feature) but the integration of this also will be a thousand times faster than coding everything from ground up. The only disadvantage probably is the costs of all this but that's actually a discussion that could and imo should be made and I think that's actually what really is wanted here: An actual discussion about all this instead of just denying or ignoring certain facts...

This doesn't need to lead to what fastlane or I or someone else proposes but a real discussion has to take place in order to unveil the disadvantages of the current system and how these could be overcome...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

well first of all, I think it is rude to jump to conclusions before finish reading sentences, but thats not the point here, so lets move on.



I have lots of multiplayer experience, especially with 3DGS. I have even released the whole source code of a small shooter project I have been working on which supports up to 8 players in a good working environment. But you need to compile with the pro edition, as it uses Acknex' Network engine.

Anyway, over the course of the years I have developed several small MMOG approaches for testing ideas on how to realize them with 3DGS and figuring out how I do best make players move and update that information only to players in range, etc...

I thought you know me well enough around here to know that I shutup if I don't know what I'm talking about and only discuss when I know, that I know, what I know.

So, I should have "brought" enough experience to talk about this.

What know, is that MMOG's, ARE possible. Thoug for a real environment featuring many,many players with differenct actions(emotes, fighting, moving etc...) the 3DGS Network Engine is ridicously impractical, none the less, it is *possible*.



Ahh the good ol' comparison starts again No but certainly, you can't offer a comparison to a car bridge with an game engine. Let's take the "bridge build kit" for instance. Maybe the kit says, you can build a bridge that can hold up to 100 cars. Though, in the process of building the bridge you realize that it is way too impractical, BUT it is possible.



Once again it is a bad comparison. Cars drive, everyoneknows that for a fact. But a normal car certainly cant drive in some rally for instance. Even some of those high priced cars who are sold as being "as powerful as an F1 car" don't. People then replace the motor.

And also your example would be like comparing it to 3DGS in the sense of: You want to create a box and then see it as a 3D object in the engine, but It wontlet me compile until I apply a texture on it. I want the engine to show me what I have in the level editor, no matter what texture I applied to it.



But it IS, it just is very very impractical. They are not lying as you are stating, they are telling the truth. It just isnt practical.



I never saw anywhere "viable/pratical MP/MMOG solution", just "capable".

Oh boy. How I just want answers from JCL rather than others who are going to get this thread locked - and lead us with no answers.

Sad.

Thats a little tyrannical. Only those who agree with this thread are allowed to post...and jcl. OK.

i`m going to throw my few quid in (inflation don`ca know ) i purchased this engine a6 commercial, then i purchased a7 commercial. i had no idea that the multiplayer aspect of the engine was so terrible. i am a noob at coding and am baseing this on what fastlane has said, it would seem to me that multiplayer functionality should be a priority and all other features for a change should be put back for a bit. if the networking code needs to be fixed then it should be, it is as simple as that really.

I'm sure Fastlane69 can comment on this himself, but he said earlier that his project didn't actually fail.

I think that most of the technical points he made are very legit.

Also, and how ever minor this is, eventhough everything may be possible, this would still be different from being capable of doing/supporting something.

Being 'capable' sort of suggests the functions/features will work 'out-of-the-box' without using too much workarounds (you'll probably run into using workarounds with every engine though).