On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Jonathan Paul Branam wrote:
->I would just like to comment that Diablo for Win95 uses UDP (as I
->understand it) and it must transfer large amounts of info pretty reliably.
->For those that don't know, Diablo is a top down adventure (kind of
->pseudo-RPG) game that has great graphics (640x480x256colors) and can be
->played on the internet. Granted you can only play with 4 people at a time,
->but I think that it is a good example of UDP working for something similar
->to a MUD.
That's not really a good example, because the graphics, etc. are all
handled by the client. The server just handles synchronizing the
data. The server just keeps tabs on the clients, and makes sure they
are all seeing the proper data. If it is designed efficiently, then
the server would be sending out surprisingly little data. In the case
of the MUD, however, the server is doing all the work, not just
synchronizing the work of the clients. Complete data has to be sent
over the network (e.g., room descriptions), instead of just simple
codes that the client can use to keep data in synch. This isn't much
of an argument against UDP, as it is against saying Diablo is a good
example of UDP working in the case of a MUD. I don't know for certain
how Diablo does things, of course, but if the developers had half a
brain, there'd be no reason to refuce 'net traffick via the above
presented solution. In the case of a MUD, this won't work, because we
can't expect people to download up-to-date data and binaries for the
MUD everytime we change a feature or an area. So, it's something like
comparing apples and oranges.
daniel koepke / dkoepke@california.com
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST