Re: [Nel] Ok, some food for your toughts

[Vianney Lecroart]

Hello,

>     I find it easier to put some simple checking into UDP than to manage
two
> sets of sockets for each client, one TCP and one UDP.  Also the important
> data that needs reliable transmission is usually rare.... like you said,
> when someone casts a spell... and maybe chat text.  Most data in a
networked
> game is usually skippable.   I think this is why most games use simple
UDP,
> because of simplicity of implementation, and because there is so little
data
> that needs to be sent reliable, a less-than-efficient reliable stream is
> o.k.   The strength in TCP/IP comes mostly when sending large amounts of
> data, since it makes compromises with packet acknowledgement over a period
> of time to gain its efficiency. But for short bursts of data typical for a
> MMOG it wouldn't perform significantly better.


Oh really? I have not the same opinion. I think that 90% of information on a
game
are important and must be received if you don't want to have inconsistency
in the client side. the order of information are also very important. if you
receive
"you lost 5 hp" message before "you are attacked by XXX", it should be
totally
weird. I think that messages, in a role game, must be sorted and reliable
for
consistency and logical events.

>     This is true.  Then again, a most of today's networked games use UDP
so,

be careful, there more than 1 category of network game. there are MMOG and
counter strike like game (with few tens of players). for the second one udp
is a
surely useful but for MMOG, I'm not sure that the most of them are in UDP
only.

-vl