Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: RazorsKiss on June 18, 2007, 10:45:10 pm
-
Ok, in this post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,47578.msg967727.html#msg967727), i said I wanted to put together a post, for Gamedev's help wanted section (http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/forum.asp?forum_id=8), to get some new blood in here and fix some "big projects" areas.
Their posts have to be formatted a specific way, which you can find here (http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=338886).
Basically, I *could* just post this for you, and fill in the rest myself. I'd rather get you SCP guys in on it, although I came up with the idea. I'm not an SCP member, but I've been hanging out at GameDev a long time. What would you guys like to see filled in, here? Like I said - if you wanted me to, I could just do it, and get a bit of input - but I'd rather get it from the "horses' mouth - and so it would be a bit more "official".
The other thing is - what sorts of "big projects' would you like a team of gamedev folks to tackle? My personal agenda is for the network code to be revamped - either updated, or replaced. That was why I advanced this idea. It's a feature my mod absolutely requires, multiple mods could use, the engine itself badly needs, and is too big for anyone to tackle by themselves. Any others?
Project name:
The Freespace 2 Source Code Project
Brief description:
The Source Code Project has been in existence since 2002, when Dave Baranec (one of the individuals who worked on Freespace 2), released the Freespace 2 source on the now-defunct Volition Watch. Since then, the FSSCP has been adding features and updating the engine regularly. (It needs more than this - I just ripped this from the wiki.)
Target aim:
Freeware.
Compensation:
This is a volunteer project. (You want to put anything else in here?)
Technology:
Codebase: C/C++
Scripting: LUA
Graphics Engine: OpenGL
(Anything else?)
Talent needed:
Programmers:
A. Network/multiplayer programmers - to improve/descramble the netcode, add mp support for >12 players
B. Collision Detection - needs a major revamp for higher-poly models.
Team structure:
Project Administrators:
Inquisitor
Goober5000
Taylor
(?)
Team Members:
(Help me fill this in, please? I couldn't find a single place where the SCP members are listed.)
Website:
Developer's website (http://scp.indiegames.us/)
Community website (http://www.hard-light.net/)
Contacts:
(How do you want this listed?)
Previous Work by Team:
(You guys want to list your various bragging rights in here?)
Additional Info:
(I'd like to see what we can come up with, as far as a "flashy demo reel" of what the SCP codebase can do. Do we have something usable, or would we like to see what we can come up with? At very least, a good sampling of the mods and TCs, not to mention the FS2_SCP w/mvps.)
Feedback:
Any.
-
we do still technicaly have a d3d component, if someone will have the capacity to work on it full time, it might not get scraped.
we can always use more graphics people, even for OGL.
-
As Taylor has stated elsewhere fixing the collision detection > all other problems.
-
Team Members:
(Help me fill this in, please? I couldn't find a single place where the SCP members are listed.)
If you could somehow list all the people with the SCP badge, that'd do it.
Ask Goob for the list of people with the badge.
-
Here is a list of everyone with SCP access...
##UnknownPlayer##
Anubis
Backslash
Bobboau
DaBrain
Darkhill
daveb
Flipside
Fractux
Fry_Day
fsi.scsi
Goober5000
Inquisitor
Juke
karajorma
kasperl
Kazan
litghost
LordAnubis
MatthewPapa
mrduckman
phreak
Pyro MX
RandomTiger
redmenace
Sesquipedalian
Shade
Soulstorm
Sticks
StratComm
taylor
Turey
WMCoolmon
Only about half of these guys are coders, and only about half of those are regulars. The list could actually stand to be pruned a little bit.
-
Any chance I could get a semi-prune? Or, should I go down the list and see who's been active in the last year?
I sent you another PM, too, Goober.
I want to get this as clsoe to what *you* guys want as I can. if that means putting my priority under yours, that's fine. Understand, though, that I'd really, really, like added multiplayer functionality. FS2's multiplayer capability is *severely* handicapped as it stands, at 12 people.
-
Well, 12 people is about the limit without a massive code rewrite. Interface, ships, mission, etc... lots of stuff would need to be overhauled for more than 12 ships to be possible. That's probably not a wise thing to pursue at this stage. We certainly have many more pressing issues to address.
EDIT: There is also the very real possibility that any mission created with more than 12 human players in mind will, by necessity, turn into a Battle of Endor mission. I can't think of anything that couldn't be done easier or more simply with the standard 12 players. Heck, even Cetanu, who created some of the most impressive and complicated multiplayer missions I've ever seen, never used more than 8 players.
-
12 people is inexcusably, outrageously small.
I haven't played a multiplayer game limited to that few people since the last time I played Starcraft - and it pisses me off there, too.
This isn't just a "well, it'd be nice" thing. If you wonder why multiplayer is dead even on the brand new TC's - that's why. It's the smallest multiplayer in it's class, bar none.
What's Allegiance or Tachyon's simultaneous players/game numbers? I know, for a fact, Tachyon supports 32 on a player-run server, and 64 on the novalogic servers.
Yes, it would be a lot of work - hence, the Gamedev team. Yes, it IS wise, because it's something *everyone* can use, and you *have to have* if you want multiplayer worth beans. It was the single largest turnoff for FS2 when it was released, and it's still a turnoff now. It has an *inexcusably* small game size. The multiplayer code is broken, and it's been broken since it was released. If we want to release fully functional multiplayer games, we need fully functional multiplayer code. It skips, lags, jumps, chops, and makes everything - especially these gorgeous HTL ships, look like crap.
It needs to be brought up to speed with the rest of the engine - or, frankly, there's no point to even bothering with a multiplayer mod, is there? Using 1998 netcode is acceptable, for teams using *barely* last-gen graphics? Yes, it's had a couple patches - but the player amounts STINK, courtesy of it's dialup roots. The netcode, for hi-poly ships, and a LOT more infomation, STINKS.
You have all of these gorgeous TCs - how many of them are multiplayer, Goober5000? How well is a 12-player limit going to go over? I come here from Tachyon (64), Allegiance(100's), Jumpgate(1,000's), Vendetta(1,000's). It took me a good bit to be convinced that thsi game really didn't have more than 12 players, like it did when I played it - and dropped it - in 99/00 for that very reason. Any TC that wants just the *basic* functionality of a modern game, needs a netcode/multi limit rewrite. I picked this engine because I was told everyone "wanted" a multi-limit boost. If that's not the case, and it's not going to be done - I'll do it myself, or fiund a new engine. Base Wars would go into Allegiance a LOT easier than it'd go into FS2, lemme tell you, though. However, the community is better here. If I have to bump the limits myself, I will. I get a differnt answer from everyone about what the most important issue is.
How about something that RETAINS players? I don't get it. Ask the other TCs if they want a multi-limit boost. Betcha get the same answer.
-
There is also the very real possibility that any mission created with more than 12 human players in mind will, by necessity, turn into a Battle of Endor mission. I can't think of anything that couldn't be done easier or more simply with the standard 12 players. Heck, even Cetanu, who created some of the most impressive and complicated multiplayer missions I've ever seen, never used more than 8 players.
Anything you can do with 12 players, you can do with 64. You can have bigger dogfights, bigger teams, and bigger... everything. Obviously, you've never played anything with higher player limits.
I've had dogfights with a *thousand* people, in Jumpgate. In the same sector, all at the same time. Yes, it was the Battle of Endor. And it was unbelievably awesome.
Because the engine friggin supported enough people to DO that. I don't need some elaborate mission to tell me what I need to do next. I go out, and I kill people.
If there aren't enough people to kill - I get sad. This is not good.
In allegiance, you can have 6 teams of a dozen players each. You're still telling me you cannot do anything meaningful with >12 players? In Tachyon, we used to have 32 vs 32 player Base Wars games that would go for days on end. Still want to tell me it's *impossible* to do anything meaningful with >12 players? 12 players is a *single* squadron. My Tachyon clan had 12 on at once, constantly. Sometimes we'd have 30, and have to use the nova server, so we could all fly together,
With teamspeak, a good pilot in the lead, and good subordinates, you can do anything you want with as many people as you want. I've played Jumpgate and Vendetta, and ran a squad of 300+ members, in Jumpgate. Don't tell me you "can't" do anything with 24, or 36, or whichever players. Just because you never have, doesn't mean we haven't, and don't want to. It's insulting people's intelligence. I can get the "it's too difficult" argument - but an argument that says "you can't do anything better with greater than 12 players" - when games have been doing JUST THAT for the last 7 YEARS, is just plain silly.
Don't make an engine limitation the linchpin for arguing for... the engine limitation. it's circular.
Edit: Sorry if this comes off as a rant. I'm just... frustrated. 12 players *chokes* a btrl server. So badly it's well-nigh unplayable. In the days of broadband, MMOs, and dedicated server packages, surely we could... find a new solution? RakNet? Something? That's the whole point of this post, Find the big things wrong with the engine, find a good-sized team of folks to work on them. Sure, do bugfixing first (including collision detection), and wxFRED - but surely the same folks that do wxFRED (wxWidgets?) and bugfixing aren't going to be network code specialists! They're completely different areas. This is something *every* TC needs, and I'm sure, wants - because they want to put out modern(ish) games for people to play. Larger server sizes = larger games, more comradeship. once you get over a certain size, it gets hectic - but the numbers I'm talking about aren't anywhere close. It's just big enough for cohesive squadron-level manuevers. It's also big enough to justify the cost of a dedicated server for your TC, supported by community donations. 12 player servers are... unspeakably old-school.
-
Do you have any comprehension exactly how much stuff would need to be changed to get above twelve players in multi? At the very least, you're talking about redrawing masses of interface files and (probably) completely rewriting the way FRED understands the concept of players. And that's without even considering the code in the game itself, which I have zero idea about. It's not an isolated module you can just pull in and out.
You have to understand, Freespace is not like a modern game - it's not a glorified multiplayer arena with a shoddily thought out single player campaign tacked on in the two weeks before the thing shipped. It was, and remain, principally a single player, plot driven, mission based combat space simulator. That's why nobody's ever been able to make a decent freelancer style trade simulator, or why nobody's been able to make even a semi random mission generator without masses of work (BHX is more or less the closest anyone's come AFAIK). The multiplayer aspect was a bonus in a time when not all games had them, and it did fine for years while PXO was running. If it's not perfect for BTRL or any of the new TCs, well, frankly, I don't particularly care. From my perspective, if someone wants to make a space sim mod where the principle aim is to go out and shoot masses people in multi player, well, good for them. They can use any of those engines you've mentioned. If, however, they want to make use of the Freespace engine, with all the freedom of open source, the graphical updates, the ridiculous ease of modding and mission construction and that helpful community you mentioned, they use FSO. Maybe it's an unpleasant choice, but it's one that has to be made. BTRL made it, so it seems will you have to.
Of course, you know more about coding in general than I do. Maybe you'll look at the problem and come to a different conclusion. Maybe interface art can be dynamically generated, maybe FRED can be convinced to play ball, maybe the FS multi code is that easy to fiddle, and maybe you do an amazing job and we all have 100+ player multi games to look forward to. Personally, I doubt it, but if you can do it, I'll be first in line applauding. Good luck.
-
It was rather rare to get an 8 player game going even during the height of FS2's popularity on PXO, and much more so for 12 player dogfights. I played there daily for years and I've only ever seen two or three 12 player games in progress. The FS2 multiplayer community today is a small fraction of what it used to be, so if increasing the limit is more than just a trivial amount of work, it wouldn't be worth it at all.
-
Well before I get into this I'd like to state that I want to see the engine expanded to deal with more players. I do however appreciate that this is a huge undertaking though so I'm certainly not saying it should be a priority.
It would be nice if all code written in the future didn't assume a maximum of 12 players though. I know that Goober for one doesn't write code with such assumptions as I've had a chat about something similar with him once.
There is also the very real possibility that any mission created with more than 12 human players in mind will, by necessity, turn into a Battle of Endor mission. I can't think of anything that couldn't be done easier or more simply with the standard 12 players. Heck, even Cetanu, who created some of the most impressive and complicated multiplayer missions I've ever seen, never used more than 8 players.
Yes but is that necessarily a problem in multiplayer? I know it seems odd to hear me arguing in favour of Endorian missions given my longstanding outspoken views against them in the past ;) but it's always been the lack of player interaction with the mission that is the foundation of my dislike for Endorian missions.
In your typical Endorian mission the problem is one of balance. Due to the size of the mission the player has little effect on the outcome of the battle. It is very hard to successfully balance a large mission on a knife edge sufficiently that the actions of a single player decides the outcome of the mission. So you typically end up with a mission which the player always wins or always loses with no regard for what the player actually does.
However this isn't an issue that affects Endorian multiplayer missions. It is far easier to simply set both sides to have similar capship forces and then leave it up to one team or the other to get the upper hand in the battle. Sure each individual player still won't have an effect on the game but in this case the team will. Unlike a SP Endorian mission the quality of the players will always tip the balance in favour of the better side.
Yes I do agree that the more players you add the harder it becomes to make a good coop mission but TvT and Dogfight mode wouldn't automatically suffer from having lots of players. Besides I relish the challenge of trying to make a 64 player Coop mission that isn't a simple gauntlet. The 1/6th of my brain that is now totally given over to FREDding is practically screaming at the rest of me by now. :D
12 people is inexcusably, outrageously small.
Now I have to disagree there. Black Wolf made the point best. With the exception of Dogfight mode FS2 Multiplayer isn't simply about deathmatch games. If you look at the :v: missions you'll soon see that what they wanted to do was provide the ability to play something analogous to the SP game but for more than one player. 12 players is more than adequate for that, even in this day and age. Want to disagree? Find me a space combat simulator that lets you play through the main SP campaign with 64 players! :p
If you want to be able to play massive multiplayer games in the engine that's one thing but :v: didn't screw up making multi only 12 player maximum. You're failing to understand that they had very different goals from the other games you mention.
This isn't just a "well, it'd be nice" thing. If you wonder why multiplayer is dead even on the brand new TC's - that's why. It's the smallest multiplayer in it's class, bar none.
Bollocks. I'll tell you why Multiplayer is dead for the major TCs and it's absolutely nothing to do with what you say. The reasons are
1. Hard to set up - Having to configure routers is not easy and discourages many players. If there were some way to automate this we'd have a lot more players. But as far as I know there isn't. On top of that some people can't even play because the ports they want to use aren't open on their university/corporate/etc network.
2. Broken standalone servers. These should be fixed in 3.6.10 but for now they aren't helping
3. Lack of games. Partly due to 2. But most people interested in playing multiplayer can't because no one is running a game.
4. Lack of multiplayer mission. WCS doesn't even work in multiplayer. TBP lacks multiplayer either completely or almost completely (I know IPA. I haven't forgotten). BtRL is the only major TC with a large set of multiplayer missions. And we've definitely fallen foul of the factors above.
Lack of massive multiplayer is not the cause.
The multiplayer code is broken, and it's been broken since it was released. If we want to release fully functional multiplayer games, we need fully functional multiplayer code. It skips, lags, jumps, chops, and makes everything - especially these gorgeous HTL ships, look like crap.
Now I'll agree with you that something is causing a lot of lag in the game. Which is why I added the -cap_object_update option as a stopgap. Fixing the current multiplayer code is more of a priority for me than adding more players.
It was rather rare to get an 8 player game going even during the height of FS2's popularity on PXO, and much more so for 12 player dogfights. I played there daily for years and I've only ever seen two or three 12 player games in progress. The FS2 multiplayer community today is a small fraction of what it used to be, so if increasing the limit is more than just a trivial amount of work, it wouldn't be worth it at all.
On the other hand BtRL achieved 100,000 downloads in under two weeks and I suspect that if we do a good job on it we should be able to equal that figure with the full release. The trick is keeping hold of the players who do want to play multiplayer. I'll bet that even at the height of it's popularity FS2 never added anywhere near that number of players in so short a time.
-
Another factor to consider is the lack of ingame joining. Few people want to sit around in a game lobby for several minutes for the sole purpose of attracting more people to play in the game.
-
I think it should be kept in mind, that RazorKiss is recruiting a group of programmers, because it is a massive undertaking; but also something that the engine badly needs.
Not such a bad idea IMHO.
It is hard, it requires a lot of work - but that's why 'professionals' should be recruited, or simply made aware of a challenge they could sharpen their talons on.
It's not a demand on current coders - but a recruit poster for new ones who could help the project out.
-
Another factor to consider is the lack of ingame joining. Few people want to sit around in a game lobby for several minutes for the sole purpose of attracting more people to play in the game.
Yeah I thought of that when I started the list but it had slipped my mind by the time I was halfway done. :D
It's next on the list for me after the standalone servers are working. :) It's already in as an experimental feature. The trick is to clean it up and make it a standard feature.
-
Talent needed:
Artists: Model and texture updates.
;)
Anyway, I like the idea of this. :yes:
-
Watch your tone, RazorsKiss. If it hadn't been for your "sorry for the rant" addendum, I would have sent you on a vacation. :doubt:
I agree with almost everything Black Wolf, karajorma, etc. posted, with the following supplemental:
Upgrading from 12 to more-than-12 players isn't a simple task. It's not even merely a complicated task; it's a massive task. For one thing, the interface would need to be significantly rewritten; and for another, all the mission code that deals with squadrons and communications would need to be tracked down and straightened out.
You can't put the multiplayer code on steroids and declare it upgraded. On the list of the top 100 limiting factors affecting multiplayer, "number of players" is probably down around #90. The top five are most likely the ones that kara and CP mentioned. And the vast majority of these limiting factors are infrastructure issues that affect the entire game, not just multiplayer.
For example, taylor mentioned collision detection as a significant problem, and collision detection increases exponentially with the number of ships. I wasn't only referring to gameplay and balance when I cited Battle of Endor; I was also thinking of performance. Can you imagine the problems that would arise from dozens of high-poly fighters and hundreds of laser bolts and missiles?
If you're so insistent on these features that you're prepared to ditch FS2 in favor of Eve or Allegiance or whatever, may I kindly suggest that you not let the door hit you on the way out. The responsible way to upgrade FS2 is not by stacking feature upon feature on the engine like a gigantic top-heavy Jenga tower; it's by repairing and strengthening the foundation to prepare the way for solid, stable growth.
I am not opposed to increasing the number of multiplayer players per se. But there are so many other things that need to be fixed first that bumping the number of players is not a realistic option in the near term.
-
Do you have any comprehension exactly how much stuff would need to be changed to get above twelve players in multi? At the very least, you're talking about redrawing masses of interface files and (probably) completely rewriting the way FRED understands the concept of players. And that's without even considering the code in the game itself, which I have zero idea about. It's not an isolated module you can just pull in and out.
Yeah, I do. That was what prompted me to make this post, and this offer in the first place. I'm on GameDev constantly, and have been for years. GameDev was what convinced me I wasn't going to learn game development overnight, and that a mod was the surest way to gain the skills you need to make a full game. I hang out there to learn more about game development, and how to properly make games. That's one of the major reasons, personally, I'm engaged in this project. The primary reason is because I love - absolutely love - Tachyon, and I want to see it live again.
The project is, indeed, massive. I've had several long talks about it with SCP coders, and I've done quite a bit of research on my own. The interface needs to redesigned, every place the interface interacts with the code that assumes 12 players needs to be redone needs to be looked at, the netcode is fairly old, and needs to be redesigned, or replaced with something more suitable for modern broadband/fast dialup players. There's more, but there's a short synopsis.
You have to understand, Freespace is not like a modern game - it's not a glorified multiplayer arena with a shoddily thought out single player campaign tacked on in the two weeks before the thing shipped. It was, and remain, principally a single player, plot driven, mission based combat space simulator. That's why nobody's ever been able to make a decent freelancer style trade simulator, or why nobody's been able to make even a semi random mission generator without masses of work (BHX is more or less the closest anyone's come AFAIK).
I chose the SCP primarily because of it's native mission editor, it's Descent-descended engine (which had the multi-axis thrust Tach needs, natively), it's modding community, and it's activity. I'm not doing a single player campaign, no. That doesn't mean I just want deathmatches. Tachyon had a LOT more than deathmatches. It had a fairly complete backstory, a VERY large fan story continuum which expanded the story tenfold, and, most important, a community that always, always tried to keep the story of their squads, and their pilot characters, in the lead.
Tachyon's Base Wars had, like Allegiance, a lot of tactical/strategic complexity and sophistication, which simply isn't possible with the player limits FS2 has in place. Ever. If you only have 6 people on a side, in Base wars, you really, really are going to have a hard time getting everything done that you need to get done. Without the RTS elements Allegiance's commanders had, though.
Yes, FS2 doesn't have any of that. I chose it anyway, because I like the engine a lot better. Don't think I'm trying to be wholly negative. But, the SCP is about modernizing the engine. If we all just want FS2, and the way it used to be - why are we here? I guess that's what puzzles me about that the most.
The multiplayer aspect was a bonus in a time when not all games had them, and it did fine for years while PXO was running. If it's not perfect for BTRL or any of the new TCs, well, frankly, I don't particularly care.
It's barely working, these days, for FS2, let alone any of the TCs. Especially not for high-poly ships. That's part of the problem. Multiplayer is dead as a doornail. While we're working on multiplayer - and, to be frank, it really needs to be worked on - and, while we're looking for a team to do major/massive projects - let's fix multiplayer, once we've tackled the major show-stopping bugs, like collision detection.
From my perspective, if someone wants to make a space sim mod where the principle aim is to go out and shoot masses people in multi player, well, good for them. They can use any of those engines you've mentioned. If, however, they want to make use of the Freespace engine, with all the freedom of open source, the graphical updates, the ridiculous ease of modding and mission construction and that helpful community you mentioned, they use FSO. Maybe it's an unpleasant choice, but it's one that has to be made. BTRL made it, so it seems will you have to.
I have not played a purely single player game in years. The AI sucks, in comparison to real people. Always. For the folks that like single-player? I'm not talking about anything that's going to affect you. I don't agree with you, and never will - but it won't affect you. You already HAVE one of the best SP mission creation engines and toolsets that exist. What we DON'T have is fully functional multiplayer capacity.
Of course, you know more about coding in general than I do. Maybe you'll look at the problem and come to a different conclusion. Maybe interface art can be dynamically generated, maybe FRED can be convinced to play ball, maybe the FS multi code is that easy to fiddle, and maybe you do an amazing job and we all have 100+ player multi games to look forward to. Personally, I doubt it, but if you can do it, I'll be first in line applauding. Good luck.
Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I do know space sims - I own over 350, from Elite on up. Most of them suck. Freespace is a great game - but for me, personally, I was never a fan of FS2, or FS when it comes to replayability. Planes in space (they fly like planes... why? You have no air resistance - what's to keep you from multi-axis thrust?) is well and good - but it's usually the engaging nature of the multiplayer gameplay that keeps a *multiplayer* game alive for any amount of time. I refuse to waste my time on someone else's story arc, with no ability to change a thing, when I can make my own, with my own character and personality - and *imagination*. Sorry.
For those of us who are singularly uninterested in creating (or remaking) a singleplayer campaign, and enjoy, to a FAR greater extent, the flexibilty and fluidity of strategic warfare with someone *different* every time we play - it's a very, very large handicap. If you want a treatise on the advantages multiplayer gameplay has over scripted single-player campaigns, I'd be happy to provide it. However, if I wanted "MASS CARNAGE111!!", I'd skip Base Wars altogether :D
Regardless, I never, ever said it was easy. In fact, given the nature of the post, I'd say I was inferring something quite the opposite. I was just... taken aback - by the direct negation of the very purpose I advanced this *entire post* to specifically remedy. The multiplayer netcode, and player limits. I don't mind bumping things that are honestly higher-priority - like collision detection. I don't see, however, why a revamp of the multiplayer code, in both respects, is neither needed nor wanted. What I've heard, and what I've experienced, is quite the opposite.
It was rather rare to get an 8 player game going even during the height of FS2's popularity on PXO, and much more so for 12 player dogfights. I played there daily for years and I've only ever seen two or three 12 player games in progress. The FS2 multiplayer community today is a small fraction of what it used to be, so if increasing the limit is more than just a trivial amount of work, it wouldn't be worth it at all.
Well, with a player limit of 12, and no ability to join-in-progress, I don't see why that'd be surprising. That's the very reason I personally dropped FS2 after picking it up in the bargain bin, in early 2000. It's lack of multiplayer features. I played the SP later, when I didn't have internet, for a short period - but I dropped the campaign after going halfway through it, because all it was was splattering dozens of AI idiot fighters. Besides, we're not talking about just FS2 here. We're talking about an even half-dozen TC's that are all *new releases* - not 9 year old classics - on a revamped engine with all the bells and whistles you can shake a stick at. My shock at the "we don't need any more players" should be rather apparent in my previous posts. That even applies to FS2 mods and campaigns, with the mediavps. Don't you guys *want* to be able to fly with at least a *whole* squadron, when launching from something the size of the Colossus? It could hold like... 10. I don't get it.
TBP and BTRL both had over 100k downloads. Think about that, for a minute. That's *200 thousand* potential players. Half of those, for a DEMO. That's a very, very large group of people to dismiss out of hand as far as new/improved functionality goes. I'm not going to even talk about my mod, or any of the others. Just BTRL and TBP say quite a bit about how much it's needed.
Well before I get into this I'd like to state that I want to see the engine expanded to deal with more players. I do however appreciate that this is a huge undertaking though so I'm certainly not saying it should be a priority.
I agree. It doesn't have to be #1 priority. I do, however, think it should be pretty far up the list for the "massive' projects, however, given it's relatively higher difficulty/scope level.
Yes but is that necessarily a problem in multiplayer? I know it seems odd to hear me arguing in favour of Endorian missions given my longstanding outspoken views against them in the past ;) but it's always been the lack of player interaction with the mission that is the foundation of my dislike for Endorian missions.
In your typical Endorian mission the problem is one of balance. Due to the size of the mission the player has little effect on the outcome of the battle. It is very hard to successfully balance a large mission on a knife edge sufficiently that the actions of a single player decides the outcome of the mission. So you typically end up with a mission which the player always wins or always loses with no regard for what the player actually does.
However this isn't an issue that affects Endorian multiplayer missions. It is far easier to simply set both sides to have similar capship forces and then leave it up to one team or the other to get the upper hand in the battle. Sure each individual player still won't have an effect on the game but in this case the team will. Unlike a SP Endorian mission the quality of the players will always tip the balance in favour of the better side.
Exactly. Base Wars was all - and I repeat - ALL about how good you were. NOT as an individual, but as a team - although individual skill did matter, to an extent - the scope required you work as a team. The best teams could stay evenly matched for, literally, days. However, that game mode is unplayable with FS2's current limits. One player can completely decimate the best defenses, if they're good. Two can keep the other team in the stone age, indefinitely. The only counter is to have a half-dozen miners, at any given time. There's the team's half of the 12-player limit, right there. The above scenario is WITH 2-3 defenders on your base. You *need* mro than the player limit has to give, to make Base Wars work - at all.
Yes I do agree that the more players you add the harder it becomes to make a good coop mission but TvT and Dogfight mode wouldn't automatically suffer from having lots of players. Besides I relish the challenge of trying to make a 64 player Coop mission that isn't a simple gauntlet. The 1/6th of my brain that is now totally given over to FREDding is practically screaming at the rest of me by now. :D
Coop missions with that many people will be... heaven. I agree.
12 people is inexcusably, outrageously small.
Now I have to disagree there. Black Wolf made the point best. With the exception of Dogfight mode FS2 Multiplayer isn't simply about deathmatch games. If you look at the :v: missions you'll soon see that what they wanted to do was provide the ability to play something analogous to the SP game but for more than one player. 12 players is more than adequate for that, even in this day and age. Want to disagree? Find me a space combat simulator that lets you play through the main SP campaign with 64 players! :p
I hate singleplayer games :D However, the ones I have played were hard solely because your idiot AI wingmen are just as dumb as the idiot AI enemy. So, you end up fighting 4,762 enemies. That's not... real. At all. If I'm in a fight for my life - it's *likely* going to happen against forces with, at the least, a rough parity with my own. Not against a force 4,000 the size of mine. What sort of idiot would send a military force against odds like that?
Whichever - that was 9 years ago. This is in the age of MMOs - and only two years after it's release date, it's successors both had much, much more single-server capacity. That was 7 years ago. We can do better now, can't we?
If you want to be able to play massive multiplayer games in the engine that's one thing but :v: didn't screw up making multi only 12 player maximum. You're failing to understand that they had very different goals from the other games you mention.
Okay. That still doesn't negate the fact that it needs fixing, 9 years later.
Bollocks. I'll tell you why Multiplayer is dead for the major TCs and it's absolutely nothing to do with what you say. The reasons are
1. Hard to set up - Having to configure routers is not easy and discourages many players. If there were some way to automate this we'd have a lot more players. But as far as I know there isn't. On top of that some people can't even play because the ports they want to use aren't open on their university/corporate/etc network.
2. Broken standalone servers. These should be fixed in 3.6.10 but for now they aren't helping
3. Lack of games. Partly due to 2. But most people interested in playing multiplayer can't because no one is running a game.
4. Lack of multiplayer mission. WCS doesn't even work in multiplayer. TBP lacks multiplayer either completely or almost completely (I know IPA. I haven't forgotten). BtRL is the only major TC with a large set of multiplayer missions. And we've definitely fallen foul of the factors above.
Lack of massive multiplayer is not the cause.
It will be, once you get out of demo. I do agree with you, those other things are all wrong with it. It's all part and parcel, though. The multiplayer, as a whole, is eons behind the rest of the SCP engine. Until it isn't, it'll be a singleplayer-specific open source platform. It's really that broken. A selection bar to choose how many players you want to host will fix your problem with FS2 compatability, if you really want to stick with 12. Regardless - can anyone really say that it makes sense for the Galactica to launch a *half* squadron of fighters - and that be it's maximum? Or half of these super-giga gargantuan carriers for some of the other mods? It's a serious hamper on what's possible, and on any sort of realism for "team battles" of most sorts.
I overstated the multi limits, in my post. I intended for it to come across as "multiplayer brokenness, in general" - but I didn't express myself clearly. My fault.
Now I'll agree with you that something is causing a lot of lag in the game. Which is why I added the -cap_object_update option as a stopgap. Fixing the current multiplayer code is more of a priority for me than adding more players.
If you're tackling one, you need to tackle the other - or you'll have to tackle it twice. If, what fixes lag problems with 12 players *doesn't* fix lag problems at higher player limits - won't you just be doing it twice? It's going to be a huge project, regardless. If we're going to tear the guts out of the multi code, and redo it - redo the interface/code portions, as well.
On the other hand BtRL achieved 100,000 downloads in under two weeks and I suspect that if we do a good job on it we should be able to equal that figure with the full release. The trick is keeping hold of the players who do want to play multiplayer. I'll bet that even at the height of it's popularity FS2 never added anywhere near that number of players in so short a time.
For 100,000 players:
8,333 servers, at 12 players apiece.
1562 servers, at 64 players.
Granted, not everyone is going to play multi at once. Not everyone will play, or play multi at all. Let's be ultra-conservative. If 2,000 of those play multi on release night - that'll be 167 servers going. With 64? That's 30. That's another major difference. Community *capacity*. I played Tachyon when it was that busy. There would be 30+ servers up, all the time. There was 4 64-man servers hsoted by Novalogic that were perpetually packed. Day and night. You cannot, I repeat, cannot, support that sort of playerbase with 12-man multi servers. Not for long, especially in competition with MMOs.
Flaser/DaBrain:
:D Thanks.
Watch your tone, RazorsKiss. If it hadn't been for your "sorry for the rant" addendum, I would have sent you on a vacation.
Roger.
Upgrading from 12 to more-than-12 players isn't a simple task. It's not even merely a complicated task; it's a massive task. For one thing, the interface would need to be significantly rewritten; and for another, all the mission code that deals with squadrons and communications would need to be tracked down and straightened out.
Thus, it's placement on the "massive tasks of doom" list. I KNOW it's not easy. Or it wouldn't have been the reason i posted this in the first place. I was surprised you said something, because I included "netcode", in two separate places, in a thread you replied in, where I mentioned this idea first.
You can't put the multiplayer code on steroids and declare it upgraded.
Didn't say that.
On the list of the top 100 limiting factors affecting multiplayer, "number of players" is probably down around #90. The top five are most likely the ones that kara and CP mentioned. And the vast majority of these limiting factors are infrastructure issues that affect the entire game, not just multiplayer.
Well, then, lets get started. What are they, so I can list them for potential coders?
For example, taylor mentioned collision detection as a significant problem, and collision detection increases exponentially with the number of ships. I wasn't only referring to gameplay and balance when I cited Battle of Endor; I was also thinking of performance. Can you imagine the problems that would arise from dozens of high-poly fighters and hundreds of laser bolts and missiles?
Yes, like I said, I've played games where you have those - multiplied by a factor of 100 or so. It's possible in other games. It's obviously possible here. Take a look at Tachyon's codebase, one time. It's beyond nightmarish. Thankfully, they used the novaworld netcode base, which is fairly decent.
If you're so insistent on these features that you're prepared to ditch FS2 in favor of Eve
How in the world I'd manage to make a mod for 1. an active MMORPG, and 2. a third person screensaver sim - I don't know :D
or Allegiance or whatever
I already said - this is still the best engine.
I want to improve it, and I want it to have the features it needs to be truly modernized. Yes, it's going to be hard - but it _needs_ the fix - in almost every conceivable multiplayer area.
-
Well, with a player limit of 12, and no ability to join-in-progress, I don't see why that'd be surprising. That's the very reason I personally dropped FS2 after picking it up in the bargain bin, in early 2000. It's lack of multiplayer features. I played the SP later, when I didn't have internet, for a short period - but I dropped the campaign after going halfway through it, because all it was was splattering dozens of AI idiot fighters. Besides, we're not talking about just FS2 here. We're talking about an even half-dozen TC's that are all *new releases* - not 9 year old classics - on a revamped engine with all the bells and whistles you can shake a stick at. My shock at the "we don't need any more players" should be rather apparent in my previous posts. That even applies to FS2 mods and campaigns, with the mediavps. Don't you guys *want* to be able to fly with at least a *whole* squadron, when launching from something the size of the Colossus? It could hold like... 10. I don't get it.
A player limit of 12 contributed to almost nobody coming close to that limit back when people still played online? :wtf: Now the lack of ingame joining was a much more serious limitation and something I've always wanted to see addressed, but nobody ever cared about the player limit back then. There were and still are many more pressing issues to worry about with respect to the multiplayer component.
I'll admit that it would be great to have 32+ players in TvT games if you could somehow get that many people together at once, but the increased limits would basically only be useful there. Co-op missions, which was what people played about 75% of the time back then, wouldn't work well with more than 12 players because the enemy would need to have too many ships to keep the difficulty reasonable. The FS2 engine doesn't handle truly large numbers of ships well, even in singleplayer, and the current netcode imposes even more stringent limitations on what you can put in. As for dogfights (which I believe was the only way to get over 8 players in retail FS2), they were rarely played at all and more for a change of pace than anything else. I think the game mechanics just didn't lend themselves very well to it.
Given what you're saying here, I think FS2 is simply not your kind of game. If you mainly want a competitive (non co-op) multiplayer game, there are frankly much better things out there, especially now that the Squadwar feature is long gone.
TBP and BTRL both had over 100k downloads. Think about that, for a minute. That's *200 thousand* potential players. Half of those, for a DEMO. That's a very, very large group of people to dismiss out of hand as far as new/improved functionality goes. I'm not going to even talk about my mod, or any of the others. Just BTRL and TBP say quite a bit about how much it's needed.
Somehow I doubt that those 200,000 players are avoiding the online component just because of the 12 player limit. :p Most of them probably aren't even aware of it. I did not know about it myself until I had been playing for quite some time in the PXO days.
One interesting side point on this topic is that in games where the singleplayer and multiplayer components are both substantial, it's fairly common for people to ignore the multiplayer altogether and play the singleplayer part only, much more so than the other way around. Even in the UT games, which are obviously designed for multiplayer, the vast majority of people who bought them never went online even once and played with bots only. In the case of FS2, I'm not sure what the sales figures were like, but the total number of active players was considerably less than 1000 back then, and that's using a very loose definition of "active."
At some point down the line, it would indeed be nice if the player limits were increased and missions were made to take advantage of them, but we're talking way down the line for it to be of any benefit.
-
It's barely working, these days, for FS2, let alone any of the TCs. Especially not for high-poly ships. That's part of the problem. Multiplayer is dead as a doornail. While we're working on multiplayer - and, to be frank, it really needs to be worked on - and, while we're looking for a team to do major/massive projects - let's fix multiplayer, once we've tackled the major show-stopping bugs, like collision detection.
No one is saying that we shouldn't fix multiplayer. You're talking about going well beyond fixing multiplayer however. You're talking about a task that would take probably a couple of years to complete. And you're insisting that it needs to become a major priority despite what you say elsewhere in your post. That's why you're getting such a hostile reaction. No one doesn't believe it would be cool to have 64 player battles. The question is whether it is worth redesigning the entire engine to do that. And most of the coders tend to feel that it really isn't worth that.
So yes massive multiplayer should be on the list of stuff that will be worked on down the road but if you want it added to the engine now you've picked the wrong engine. FS2_Open isn't remotely ready for it yet.
I have not played a purely single player game in years. The AI sucks, in comparison to real people. Always. For the folks that like single-player? I'm not talking about anything that's going to affect you. I don't agree with you, and never will - but it won't affect you. You already HAVE one of the best SP mission creation engines and toolsets that exist. What we DON'T have is fully functional multiplayer capacity.
Similarly we don't have a great FPS engine or the ability play the game as an RTS. And we're not going to get those abilities soon if ever. Again if you're trying to turn FS2 into something it's not you're going to be waiting a long time before it's ready.
If you want a treatise on the advantages multiplayer gameplay has over scripted single-player campaigns, I'd be happy to provide it.
And you'd be wasting your time just as much as if you tried to convince us why FPS or strategy games are better. FS2 has always been and will always continue to be primarily a Singleplayer game. That's what most of the fans in the community like. Have you failed to notice that I'm the only SCP coder who even plays multiplayer? And even then I'm not a huge fan. I prefer SP.
The entire engine has been designed around SP. Yes, multi can be improved and fixed in many ways including possibly raising limits but it is not the primary focus of the engine and never has been.
Regardless, I never, ever said it was easy. In fact, given the nature of the post, I'd say I was inferring something quite the opposite. I was just... taken aback - by the direct negation of the very purpose I advanced this *entire post* to specifically remedy. The multiplayer netcode, and player limits. I don't mind bumping things that are honestly higher-priority - like collision detection. I don't see, however, why a revamp of the multiplayer code, in both respects, is neither needed nor wanted. What I've heard, and what I've experienced, is quite the opposite.
Because you're not talking about a revamp of the multiplayer code. You're talking about a rewrite of a very large portion of the entire engine. We're talking about yanking the majority of the network code and rewriting it. And then the interface code, FRED, mission parsing, and a whole bunch of other parts of the code.
Besides. You didn't encounter much negativity until you went off on a rant about why the limit couldn't stay at 12 players. If you'd said we need network coders to fix 12 player multi as a priority I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid.
My shock at the "we don't need any more players" should be rather apparent in my previous posts. That even applies to FS2 mods and campaigns, with the mediavps. Don't you guys *want* to be able to fly with at least a *whole* squadron, when launching from something the size of the Colossus? It could hold like... 10. I don't get it.
We may want that. But there are other things we also want. Other things that we can have by the end of the year if we don't tie up new talent in a project that won't be finished until late next year at the very earliest.
TBP and BTRL both had over 100k downloads.
Not to denigrate TBP in the slightest but the only figure I ever heard from them was well under that number. There's a typo in a recent interview that gives them the same download figures BtRL had but I don't think they were every that high. I'd be happy to be proved wrong of course.
That's a very, very large group of people to dismiss out of hand as far as new/improved functionality goes. I'm not going to even talk about my mod, or any of the others. Just BTRL and TBP say quite a bit about how much it's needed.
And speaking as the person responsible for half of the BtRL multiplayer missions I happen to disagree with you. Number of players per mission has never been a large complaint on the forums at all. It gets mentioned occasionally as a "It would be nice if...." but it's not the reason for the poor uptake of multiplayer on BtRL. The reasons are the ones I mentioned before. Now if you want to make fixing those matters a priority then I'm right behind you. In fact you'll probably find that all the SCP are behind you on that one. Multiplayer is in a terrible state at the moment. I doubt you'll find an SCP coder who doesn't think it needs fixing. What we disagree with is this assumption that lack of massively multiplayer games is the cause of the poor uptake of multi.
If right now I could snap my fingers and have 64 players or in game joining I'd choose the latter as it's by far the bigger problem. (Well actually if I could just snap my fingers I'd choose 64 players cause we can add in-game joining in a couple of months as opposed to a couple of years but you get my point :p)
I agree. It doesn't have to be #1 priority. I do, however, think it should be pretty far up the list for the "massive' projects, however, given it's relatively higher difficulty/scope level.
If you want it on the list that's one thing. But to try to attract people to the engine by saying "Lets do x" only to be told that the engine won't be ready for them to do x for over a year is simply going to piss them off. Tell them to come to fix multiplayer. Tell them to try to keep higher limits in mind while they fix multiplayer. But don't tell them to come here to make 64 player games possible. Not without telling them that it's going to take a very long time.
The multiplayer, as a whole, is eons behind the rest of the SCP engine.
And as a Jonny-come-lately to the engine I guess you don't realise why that is the case. Or how often I've ranted about the reasons why multiplayer is broken. You don't need to persuade me that fixing multiplayer is important.
But if you're trying to tell me that next to no one will play BtRL multiplayer until we give them 64 player matches then you're dead wrong.
If you're tackling one, you need to tackle the other - or you'll have to tackle it twice. If, what fixes lag problems with 12 players *doesn't* fix lag problems at higher player limits - won't you just be doing it twice? It's going to be a huge project, regardless. If we're going to tear the guts out of the multi code, and redo it - redo the interface/code portions, as well.
Because I'd rather fix it now and possibly have to fix it again in a couple of years once the 64 player code is done than simply wait 2 years with broken code. Who said I'd have to tear the guts out of the multi code? The fact that lag increases rapidly after you hit 6-7 players suggests that there is a small but significant bug in the code somewhere rather than it being that the code is fundamentally flawed.
If the only fix is to rewrite all the multi code then yes it seems logical to make sure that it can handle more than 12 players but you shouldn't assume that.
Granted, not everyone is going to play multi at once. Not everyone will play, or play multi at all. Let's be ultra-conservative. If 2,000 of those play multi on release night - that'll be 167 servers going. With 64? That's 30. That's another major difference. Community *capacity*. I played Tachyon when it was that busy. There would be 30+ servers up, all the time. There was 4 64-man servers hsoted by Novalogic that were perpetually packed. Day and night. You cannot, I repeat, cannot, support that sort of playerbase with 12-man multi servers. Not for long, especially in competition with MMOs.
*points at Halo with it's 16 player maximum servers*
Always plenty of activity there (or at least there was when I played it). And I doubt it's the only game that has low numbers of players and is still very popular. I simply don't buy this "64 players or no one plays" argument.
-
Back on topic - what else do we need for this post?
We'll worry about the MP limits later, it seems. Good enough.
-
EDIT: For some reason I saw the last post as still having to do with the MP discussion. I'll leave this here only because I spent so much time typing it :p Ignore it at your leisure, though (although I do think it is vitally important).
Razor, just popping into the thread here, but in regards to multiplayer: I suggested to taylor that the coders (or at least the SCP leads) should have a sit down with multi players before the decisions on the "most important" multi fixes are. That way, you guys can finally get some feedback from the people who really need the features. Reading more thoroughly into the thread (it's too late for me to read all of it, 3:37 AM and I'm tired :) ), it seems that this is really something that's pretty necessary.
I'd like to both disagree and agree with the statement that FS2 has always been and will be a primarily single player game. Yes, FS2 has always been about SP, and yes, that will be a great focus in the future - but the fact of the matter is, multiplayer is more fun than singleplayer, in many regards. They're two different kinds of fun but neglecting multiplayer for the sake of single player is just ludicrous in today's world (NOTE: I'm not directing this at you or anyone in particular, I'm just stating my beliefs). Many of us want FS2 to get more well known and have more players - the only way that's going to happen is if we have a solid, easy to use and easy to understand multiplayer component. We can still have excellently crafted storylines with FS2 multiplayer - that's the beauty of coop - but we need a better system than what we have now. I'm sorry, but I think that sticking with an "SP above all else" approach will keep FS2 in the semi-obscurity that it's in.
If you want an example, I can provide one: the BtRL release. That release was a multi-centric release, it's what we said both internally and externally. When we finally got it out, the reaction was absolutely massive. Most people who played it loved it, and when they could get on multiplayer they thought it was some of the best stuff since sliced bread.
Now, notice I said "could" get on multiplayer. Tell me if this makes sense to you:
To register on multiplayer, players had to...
1) Register on a third party, out-of-game website.
2) Confirm that registration by email.
3) Follow several steps to open up router ports - many of our fans aren't that computer literate, and were completely lost there.
4) Hope that the version you have is the latest version, because running the auto-update isn't mandatory when launching multi.
5) Go back into the game and input your login name and password in a screen that's actually two sub screens away from the ACTUAL multiplayer lobby button.
6) Put in their login info and connect to FS2NetD.
But here's the kicker - that would only work sometimes. Many times players could see some games but not others, or only one game out of 3, or they would see their friend's game, refresh, and it'd be gone. Basically, the system was broken. How broken? Well, out of a 100,000+ download release, we got, on average, three servers with about 10 people each on them for the first week or so. After that, we were lucky to get one server with 4 people a night. Now, it's pretty much completely dead again.
Compare that registration process with, say, Relic's Dawn of War.
1) Open the game.
2) Click "Multiplayer"
3) Input your account. If you don't have an account, click "Register" and register a new one right there, in-game.
4) Click Go (or whatever, forget the exact name).
5) Game checks for new patches. If one's found, it tells you to download. You click yes, it downloads in game.
6) Get dropped into the lobby. You're good to go.
Much simpler for those players out there who haven't been playing the same game for ten years - the same players we need/want to attract.
Yes, SP needs improvement. Yes, it will always be improved - but like was already mentioned - FS2 is one of the best SP experiences out there. So why are we constantly improving something that's already at the top of it's game? Why don't we move on to the next big thing, the next thing that will secure FS2's future, and needs improvement the most. We don't need another SEXP that only five or so FREDers will use, we need a multiplayer system so that we can actually revive what used to be a thriving community.
-
Next time, finish the thread. :p Cause I made the same comment.
The entire engine has been designed around SP. Yes, multi can be improved and fixed in many ways including possibly raising limits but it is not the primary focus of the engine and never has been.
Back on topic - what else do we need for this post?
We'll worry about the MP limits later, it seems. Good enough.
Sounds good enough to me. What else we need, well any of the other improvements mentioned in this thread. UT mentions a good one about registration too.
-
You seemed to be implying that we should give up MP at the expense of SP, on the basis that the engine was designed for mostly SP. I don't want bigger player limits or anything like that - all I keep campaigning for is a streamlined multiplayer interface, where all you have to do is click a few buttons and you're in the game. The current flaming hoop act that you have to perform to get multiplayer to work is ludicrous. The fact that we had to release BtRL without dedicated server support took away at least 70% of our potential player base. And the fact that we don't have bog-standard game options like cycling maps (missions) on said dedicated servers is similarly ludicrous.
What would get people playing BtRL and FS2 and every other mod out there, is if all people had to do was follow some simple steps, and when they hit the lobby, they find a set of always running and always cycling servers. No, the servers don't need to be maintained by SCP either - kara, you remember the dozens of requests we got for people asking to host dedicated servers for us. If we get basic stuff like that, we've come that much closer to modernizing FS2's multiplayer support.
Agh, I've been drawn into restarting the debate. Ok, I'm done (I hope).
-
Like I said. Read the thread. Then comment.
-
I too think a call for artists and modellers should really go in there- as much as i love the FSUP guys, they're really struggling in there atm. For an engine that is so ready to accomodate a slew of new graphical content, it's a real shame.
-
I too think a call for artists and modellers should really go in there- as much as i love the FSUP guys, they're really struggling in there atm. For an engine that is so ready to accomodate a slew of new graphical content, it's a real shame.
we're just all off doing SoL or BTRL or SWC or any number of super epic huge 'lets make everything new!' projects.
theyre fun!
-
Hmm... Never forget about the roots. ;)
I'm still working on content for FS2 secretly.
-
A GameDev post is a great idea ;)
The arguments are silly ;)
-
Glad you think it's a good idea.
I would, however, like some more input from the SCP folks, as to what they want in their post :D
-
or any number of super epic huge 'lets make everything new!' projects.
I wish :(
This was actually a really poor time to announce my TC.
-
What you have there is pretty good, our needs are the usual smorgasborg, taylor and goob would/should speak to specific needs for the SCP. Network, Collision, Physics, Graphics, UI. A desire to contribute to a community project, as for bragging, I'd pull liberally from the various existing high profile TC's, rather than "our" projects, things the SCP has been used in, i.e. TBP and BTRL being the two extremely notable ones that have leveraged the SCP. You could (if taylor wanted) always point out folks like taylor's involvement with icculus.org or my involvement with Max Gaming, but the real meat is what people are doing with the work the SCP is accomplishing, so if I were making the post I might say:
"The SCP has been leveraged by a number of projects, recently by "The Babylon Project" (URL) and "Beyond the Red Line" (URL) as well as countless story driven campaigns set in the FS2 universe."
Interested folks should come here and post, best way to get involved, and we like to see some code samples before we turn people loose.
Otherwise it doesn't need to be too elaborate.
-
I'll do a revised writeup once I get back from camping. (Middle of next week)
We'll see if you like it enough for me to post it.
I think I'll include a direct link to the SCP forum, the CVS site, so they can look at the code a bit.
Do you want me to make a post on this forum (simultaneous with the post on gamedev) to direct-link them to, where they can post that they're interested, and get in touch with you further about code samples and etc, from there? Or is there a better idea?
-
That sounds like a great idea.
-
So, I guess I need a bit more info. What, at least in a general way, needs fixing in the general categories I have listed below, and what other categories would you suggest?
Project name:
The Freespace 2 Source Code Project
Brief description:
The Source Code Project has been in existence since 2002, when Dave Baranec (one of the individuals who worked on Freespace 2), released the Freespace 2 source on the now-defunct Volition Watch. Since then, the FSSCP has been adding features and updating the engine regularly.
The FSSCP is headed up by Goober5000 and Taylor, with help from the original project coordinator, Inquisitor. As project leaders they keep the team organized and working towards set goals. They will request a 'code freeze' before a major release, when programmers aren't supposed to add new features, and instead focus on cleaning up existing bugs. When the team is not preparing for a release, individual programmers are given a lot of leeway in what they can work on.
Target aim:
Freeware.
Compensation:
This is a volunteer project.
Technology:
Codebase: C/C++
Scripting: LUA
Graphics API: OpenGL
Talent needed:
Programmers:
A. Collision Detection - needs a major revamp to handle higher-poly models.
B. Network/multiplayer programmers - this is one of the least-updated portions of the project.
C. Physics programmers - (wha?)
NOTE - I need specifics here, folks. What exactly needs fixing, in which area.
For collision - what is the problem, exactly, that needs to be fixed?
For network/multiplayer - we need join-in-progress, standalone servers, streamlining the setup/settings process (server and client side?) - what else?
For physics - I have no idea :D What needs to be fixed?
Graphics:
A. HTL models to "update" the original FS2 content
B. Enhancements of the UI
C. ?
(How's this work for a catch-all?)
In General:
There is a very long laundry list of bugs, feature requests, and general modernization tasks which need attention.
Team structure:
Project Administrators:
Inquisitor
Goober5000
Taylor
Team Members:
There are approximately 30 people who currently work on the project in their spare time, but a dozen regular contributors.
Website:
Developer's website (http://scp.indiegames.us/)
Community website (http://www.hard-light.net/)
Contacts:
(How do you want this listed?)
Previous Work by Team:
Several SCP members have been involved in various mod and game projects. Inquisitor is involved with Max Gaming, the developers of the Lore series, and taylor is involved with icculus.org. This is not a new project, either. Several members have been involved with this project since it's inception, as well.
Additional Info:
As mentioned, there are multiple Total Conversions leveraging the SCP engine.
The Babylon Project (http://babylon.hard-light.net/)
Beyond The Red Line (http://www.game-warden.com/bsg/)
Wing Commander Saga (http://www.wcsaga.com/)
Shadows of Lylat (http://www.game-warden.com/starfox/)
Fate of the Galaxy (http://swc.hard-light.net/)
Fringespace (http://fringespace.org)
There are also dozens of mods (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/User-made_Campaigns), within the enhanced SCP engine, which rely on the SCP team's work as well.
Feedback:
Any.
-
This should be interesting.
-
Anything?
-
You could probably link directly to Mantis :)
-
A. HTL models to "update" the original FS2 content
B. Enhancements of the UI
C. ?
"HTL" is a bit of a forum colloquialism, probably not the best term to use.
"Updating and modernization of game assets (including 3d models, skins & art)" sounds better (to me, but I'm bias :))
UI Enhancement is almost as much a programming thing as it is an art thing, new art is next to useless without the code behind it.
-
Honestly, what we REALLY need is bug fixers and people with strong leadership skills and good coding practices. People who can help us herd the cats and make this a stable, useful bit of game programming.
We can't dream of new big features or enhancements until we have a stable code base.
So, if I were looking for people to hire, I'd say:
-Performance and optimization on all aspects of the engine
-Multiplatform compatibility optimzation
-Experienced debug people/bug fixers
-Team leaders experienced with prioritization
That's my wish list for help. I have a few very burned out, very talented folks who need general help thoughout the codebase. Our focus has got to shift to QA and bug fixing before we can take on any more huge projects. Its not glamourous, but it is necessary.
-
This idea die out or something?
-
I suppose I can post it if the OP is not interested in posting the less sexy version :)
-
well *someone* post something. It doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it generates some interested in FS2Open then it has done its job... right?
-
I have to see if I even have a Gamedev account, and then see if I can post it without confusing our existing paying job stuff.
-
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=457021
I kept it intentionally generic.
-
I was just waiting for someone to answer some of the questions up there :D
Glad someone did it, though.
Do you _really_ only want "encouraging only" feedback? That's usually the first thing people notice - it screams "I can't take the heat" - and most coders use that as a flag for "I don't want to help with that".
It says that in the posting FAQ up top of the Help Wanted forum, in case you were wondering. (And it's true, from personal experience)
It's pretty generic, yeah :P But, at least it's done.
-
Yep, 94 views, 0 replies. Is that a good, bad, or neutral sign?
-
Ah, the only two optiosn i saw were none and encouraging only.
Apparently, "let me have it" isn';t listed as an option.