carrollhead Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 @carrollhead - That would be a great idea if someone actually did it. I would absolutely do this - but before I went ahead, it would be good to see if any of the owners of the more popular public servers would support it. Otherwise it would be dead before it started. As I said - it's not about treading on the existing teamspeak servers out there, more to just give all the players looking for a game one TS that they can all populate. I would give each channel (representing each server) their own admin rights so they would be free to police what they needed, add TARS etc. I reckon 40 slots would probably be about right to start with, but I'll wait to see if I get some more positive responses before spending any money:) - at the very least we'd need the briefing on the servers to show the new TS address.
Vedexent Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 I would absolutely do this - but before I went ahead, it would be good to see if any of the owners of the more popular public servers would support it. Otherwise it would be dead before it started. While support from the more popular servers would be great, I think getting enough people/servers online, period, would be good as well. I think it's the critical mass of people that's important. It's just easier with the large servers. We've got 0-10 people online usually - so we're pretty small - but I think we'd jump on this.
Pman Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 While support from the more popular servers would be great, I think getting enough people/servers online, period, would be good as well. I think it's the critical mass of people that's important. It's just easier with the large servers. We've got 0-10 people online usually - so we're pretty small - but I think we'd jump on this. Our TS normally has up to 25 people on it on the weekends. I dont think this is something that VA would participate in. Pman
Vedexent Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 Our TS normally has up to 25 people on it on the weekends. Really? Why has no one mentioned this before?
FLANKERATOR Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 Expert, why don't you try to use your machine as a dedicated server for a while? Client side, you seem to have a smooth experience so if your SSD theory is correct, then you'd end up running a stable server. Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
FLANKERATOR Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 An SSD is definitely worth it performance wise, no question. The main issue we're facing though is the server stability during force on force heavy tactical missions. It's easy for a client to ask for permission to reconnect after say a CTD, but if the server itself crashes, then the whole event is jeopardized. Of course, we're talking official sorties here like OPFOR, Georgian Incident, SA Battles and so on... We have been used to such events in the past; 3+ hour red vs blue or redflag type missions with sometimes more than 40 or 50 pilots out for blood, and despite wrapping at airfields, the server had most of the time been able to handle it. DCS is about simulating a virtual battlefield, Its too bad when you're not able to use it at its full potential. We were forced to cancel 2 SA tour events lately. 'Phoenix's Nest" for example had had a successful test run on 1.2.5 which by the way was the most stable DCS version, yet went completely haywire on D-day on 1.2.6. SATAC 2013 has been a very successful event, but it was a pure air-to-air competition and the maximum server load was 12 players (6v6). Well, the reply was to someone who is having issues as a client in MP. At least that's where to start. And <51st>, for example, seems to have figured out how to minimize the server crashes, as I've been flying there daily and able to complete the whole SEAD without a crash within hours and keep flying with others as a fighter. So, it's possible to affect stability with at least designing the mission from scratch with the current version, then make changes, and observe what's causing the server crashes more often than not. For example, moving ships may begin to warp and it may affect stability. You cannot deny that an SSD, whether for a client or a server is a major upgrade towards performance, however. Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
carrollhead Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 @pman - I understand your position! What I'm suggesting might be a way to get the people who turn up on public servers and don't use teampseak to get on comms. I know there will always be people who just don't do the voice thing - but I do think that if people could be persuaded to go looking for a game by joining a teamspeak that acts as a sort of lobby - then it would tackle some of the problems we have with DCS multiplayer. I think (from reading this thread anyway), that the VA server is one of the few that can stay running for relatively long periods of time without falling over - because of the type of mission you fly. What's happening a lot (IMO) is that when a server crashes, we lose loads of players because they don't know what's happening - being in one teampseak would make that go away. Even if people don't use voice - they'll be able to hear it - and there is a text chat. It's the closest thing I can think of to replacing an old style hyperlobby. It's not ideal, but with community support it could be made to work I think. I don't know how many (% wise) of the players on a typical open server are in TS, but I suspect its pretty low. Anything we could do to fix that has to be a good idea surely? I realise that there are issues surrounding things like bans etc - and we would have to find some sort of common ground on how to deal with stuff like that. I still reckon we could improve the overall experience for the typical "casual" player by setting something like this.
Pman Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 @pman - I understand your position! What I'm suggesting might be a way to get the people who turn up on public servers and don't use teampseak to get on comms. I know there will always be people who just don't do the voice thing - but I do think that if people could be persuaded to go looking for a game by joining a teamspeak that acts as a sort of lobby - then it would tackle some of the problems we have with DCS multiplayer. I think (from reading this thread anyway), that the VA server is one of the few that can stay running for relatively long periods of time without falling over - because of the type of mission you fly. What's happening a lot (IMO) is that when a server crashes, we lose loads of players because they don't know what's happening - being in one teampseak would make that go away. Even if people don't use voice - they'll be able to hear it - and there is a text chat. It's the closest thing I can think of to replacing an old style hyperlobby. It's not ideal, but with community support it could be made to work I think. I don't know how many (% wise) of the players on a typical open server are in TS, but I suspect its pretty low. Anything we could do to fix that has to be a good idea surely? I realise that there are issues surrounding things like bans etc - and we would have to find some sort of common ground on how to deal with stuff like that. I still reckon we could improve the overall experience for the typical "casual" player by setting something like this. Yeah alot of people do quit when the servers crash and they dont know whats going on. Our server does crash but it auto recovers after 3 minutes so it will 99% of the time come back quick. Personally I like as many people to be in teamspeak as possible :) Pman
Teknetinium Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 I strongly recommend everyone who fly on 51st Server joining 51st TS3. We have 5 channels for each side. Some who fly on 51st server already use 51st TS3 daily. 51st TS3: 51st.hopto.org 51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
kobac Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 For me last night twice in multiplayer crash happened, not only DCS, but the whole system! Immediately after starting P-51 engine, and I have no idea why. If this continues, that will damage my hardware. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Everything is possible ...
Wodan Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Hamblue, October 2013: One of the silent things happening is that the multiplayer crowd is slowly backing off. The crashes and bugs have been going on for a very long time and little has been done about it. They seem to fix it and within a couple of patches they break it. It's a shame but people will tend to migrate to what works. February, 2014 Win10, Intel 2500K@4,4 MHz, 16GB RAM, ASUS STRIX-GTX1060, SSD CRUCIAL MX300 525 GB, 4K TV LG 50UH635V, FreeTrack, X52
Blooze Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Hamblue, October 2013: One of the silent things happening is that the multiplayer crowd is slowly backing off. The crashes and bugs have been going on for a very long time and little has been done about it. They seem to fix it and within a couple of patches they break it. It's a shame but people will tend to migrate to what works. February, 2014 I have been hosting MP missions for a long time with no server crashes. Reason being is that I host for a small group with no more than 10 players. What I have been seeing lately is that more MP players have adopted the same strategy and rather than relying on the dedicated servers, they are forming small groups that fly the missions that have been designed for that purpose. Considering that the dedicated servers continue to have the same problems with server crashes I think this may be the only solution. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Mustang Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Read onwards from post #24 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119793&page=3 steps will be attempted to nail the server crash issue.
Blooze Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Read onwards from post #24 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119793&page=3 steps will be attempted to nail the server crash issue. This makes sense. I wonder what would happen if the host forced invulnerability on the clients eliminating the actual aircraft crash? Would that help isolate the cause? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Mustang Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 This makes sense. I wonder what would happen if the host forced invulnerability on the clients eliminating the actual aircraft crash? Would that help isolate the cause? That is a good idea, try it and see :)
Recommended Posts