crazy idea: distributed processing

[sobek]

Well, to be fair: Crysis. :P

 

Never played it, so my statement stands. :P:D

[cmeliak]

may be, but for me is much more important to have a simulator with multicore support.

such a kind of simulator will be able to compute much larger environment with more vehicles, planes, explosions and so on. 64bit architecture gives better possibility to store textures, recording movies...

[sobek]

may be, but for me is much more important to have a simulator with multicore support.

 

DCS does also support multicore... :P;)

 

such a kind of simulator will be able to compute much larger environment with more vehicles, planes, explosions and so on. 64bit architecture gives better possibility to store textures, recording movies...

 

Granted it would be nice for more things to be moved to separate threads, however, this is a very time consuming process. We will see what the new terrain engine brings.

 

It's not true that the increased memory adress space only benefits eye candy though, unit count is something that does eat up memory too.

 

PS: If you want to run your mouth about features, it actually helps to know what state they are in. ;)

Edited April 10, 2012 by sobek

[cmeliak]

fact is that i am not daily up to date ... this is fact...

i am observing it since ... i do not remember any more. ... and what are the changes in the last years???? almost nothing ... but licensing concept and "pay for each aircraft" concept is really very good developed ....

sorry for that but i just started the first lock on .... and dcs package .... what is added value ??? please tell me what is difference/improvement for mig29 or su27???? hmmm do you know this http://www.mobygames.com/game/su-27-flanker ?? graphics?? trackir support ??? definitelly yes... we could discuus about so called "flight model" ... i have no experience with real flight so I can not contribute.... but just try the older one too, to feel the difference.

have a fun ...

 

(sorry, may be i have a bad day)

[GGTharos]

and what are the changes in the last years???? almost nothing

 

If by almost nothing you mean:

 

- Redeveloping the ME

- A-10C with hi-fi cockpit and instrumentation

- 64bit binaries

- New sound engine

- Moving to core based system

- New weapon types

- Constant addition of ME features

- P-51 and Combined Arms

- Development of EDGE

- more stuff than you've been told, but has been hinted at, and stuff you know nothing of

 

... then I agree, 'nothing' has been changing.

 

 

please tell me what is difference/improvement for mig29 or su27???? hmmm do you know this http://www.mobygames.com/game/su-27-flanker ?? graphics?? trackir support ??? definitelly yes... we could discuus about so called "flight model" ... i have no experience with real flight so I can not contribute.... but just try the older one too, to feel the difference.

have a fun ...

FC2 featured significantly adjusted FM (Within the limits of the SFM) for all aircraft so that they perform more realistically, and updates to air to air weapons as well. So, again, 'almost nothing' is untrue.

 

The fact that FC2 was moved into the DCS environment was also significant for mission making as well as compatibility with Black Shark, and that was also a huge change.

[cmeliak]

:)

-i really can not evaluate how realistic it is ... let the pilots talking ....

-additional weapons .... definitelly YES

-core based system ??? never seen 100% in the cpu bar in my task manager .... what is wrong???

- new sound engine ... definitelly YES

- A10,P51??? unfortunatelly nothing 4 me ... fly RUS planes

- DCS environment??? do i need??? compatibility with BS?? do I need?? - i would say that in comparison to flanker is possibility to fly over internet with several frineds much better feature than dcs enviro.

 

 

I do not say that it is bad, i say: i would like real multicore support to use my cpu to 100% ... and i am tired of waiting ... sorry for that ... try to search first posts about this topic ... it is several years ago ....

[sungsam]

DCS Modular Architecture over network

 

Not really a smart ass here, but i just want express some considerations of mine and would be glad to hear some opinion of you.

 

Since we move to a modular architecture, what would be the potential of making the DCS modules capable of communicating over network?

 

- In my limited imagination, an advantage would be to have a PC running DCS Word and another one DCS <Aircraft>. That way distribution of resource consumption would be possible.

 

- Further brake down could be DCS theater modules, a DCS client for communicating with the above modules over network etc....

 

- Then imagine the benefits on professional implementation versions of ED’s simulations, or even a future ED Server environment "playground" for customers. (Free charge of course :))

 

Is there really a provisioning on this path for ED or my imagination is totally wrong and sever disadvantages lurking below such a development course?

 

What do you think about?

[Speed]

Such a thing has been discussed recently on here. I don't remember where. You're basically talking about distributed processing over a LAN/broadband connection? Maybe it's possible, but ED would probably be better off increasing the amount of distributed processing across multiple cores on a single computer first. And also, I doubt the number of users who would actually utilize something like this would make it worth the development time/cost. I've never even heard of a game that does anything like this.

[sungsam]

Thanks for anwering.

 

Yes I do talking about distributed processing over a LAN/broadband connection, and your point on multicore procensing is right.

[simtex]

"Bandwidth is made by men but latency is given by god."

[c0ff]

In fact, DCS multiplayer is a distributed simulation system.

It was architectured by me like this from the very start (LO 1.0).

Any unit group can be simulated on any host.

 

However, things such as object migration and load balancing, needed for a true distributed system were not implemented because of no practical value in a consumer product.