Re(4): Network game design (UDP)
Re(4): Network game design (UDP)
- Subject: Re(4): Network game design (UDP)
- From: Jens Bauer <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:47:26 +0200
Hi Pietrzak,,
On Thu, 27 Jun, 2002, Pietrzak, Bryan <email@hidden> wrote:
>
OpenPlay would suit your needs VERY well.
>
>
And in fact, this same exact discussion was just on the list a week or two
>
ago.
Yes, I remember it, but some of the issues were a bit different.
When I'm in this "mode" thinking the way this game works, it's very
difficult mapping it onto the usual way of programming.
It's being done in "objective assembler", which indeed sounds complicated
and requires a special assembler.
But once the code has been written for any platform, it's usually only 30
lines per object, and very stable, plus it's portable (source-code, not
binary).
Interfacing the game with C or ObjC is a completely different story! ;)
>
OpenPlay doesn't care what kind of game you do. It doesn't care if you are a
>
first person shooter, a tetris-like game, a card game or an adventure game.
>
(And Freeverse Software, http://www.freeverse.com), who's card games I'm
>
responsible for, has done all but the first of those games using OpenPlay
>
and NSp on top of that).
>
>
OpenPlay also includes an thin NetSprocket API. (That it is, NetSprocket is
>
now truly just a layer on top of OpenPlay and optional if you don't need
>
it.) NetSprocket is very convenient as it manages all the players and
>
"groups" and has message broadcasting mechanisms that allow you to easily
>
send a message to all players with different levels of need (i.e. junk,
>
normal, registered).
>
>
Some very exciting things are happening in the world of OpenPlay these days
>
with more developers coming on board every day. If you are even *thinking*
>
about doing a network game, you owe it to yourself to at least look at
>
OpenPlay at http://lists.apple.com
You convinced me, I better go and have a look at it.
>
Also one other comment: if you don't use a client-server methodology, you
>
can get yourself into trouble using peer-to-peer because of NAT.
That's true! I completely forgot about that.
Good argument! It definately seems like I should go for the one server, 8
clients model.
Indeed all of you have saved me for a lot of trouble, and I am very grateful.
Implementing a UDP-server is very easy, and sending requests to it is
very easy as well, so I'll definately try this for a start.
Matt's "mom-test" made me realize that if it'll most-likely work and it's
very easy to implement, it's completely wrong not doing it. ;)
Love,
Jens
--
Jens Bauer, Faster Software.
-Let's make the World better, shall we ?
_______________________________________________
macnetworkprog mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/macnetworkprog
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.