On Fri, 19 May 2006, William Balcerski wrote: > > I do it in paradise-2000, so it's obviously possible. I'm not going copy > > my features for you, you'll have to write them yourself. > > > Alright I'm going to call you on this one. If you have 2 cloaked ships > both named guest in nearly the exact same place (trying to bomb homeworld > is a likely scenario), how are you going to tell which ship is which based > on player name? Client doesn't get exact position for cloakers. It does when you plock them! > > The only people who would want to use non-short packets are borg > > authors looking for more information and people with old clients. The same > > clients that don't like message text getting changed. > > > Short packets give less information. Most noticeably, ship heading. Actually > I made a list, I've come across lots of short packet problems during my coding: > > 1) cloaking/shields at warp 0 doesn't update someone else's tactical on > what you did Only if no ship in the game is moving at all. > 2) observer sound messes up when someone flips shields at warp 0 > 3) Locking onto robot cause the observer sound to mess up for shields > up/down What are you talking about, observer sound? > 4) Observers don't get any geno message at all (head to default which is > error message) Haven't heard about that one. > 5) The new smooth turning only working on self, not obs or others - short > packets only send headings of 16 positions. Short packets should be extended for more ship positions. > If you have any decent internet connection, there is no reason to use > short packets. Unless you like playing with *less* information. Short packets handle packetloss much better than old packets. They provide messages and warnings in a form which the client can do more with. You can get custom kill messages, phaser messages, planet take, and so on. Short packets reduce the network bandwidth to the server. Short packets should be considered the standard. Old packets are just for backward compatibility. Old packets should not change. If protocol enhancements are desired, they should be incorporated into short packets. > You packed a lot of ideas into those 2 sentences, going to have to disect: > > Statement 1: > Borg authors would want to use non-short packets for more information > > Statement 2: > People with old clients would want to use non-short packets for more > information People with old clients would want to use non-short packets because their client dooesn't support short packets or doesn't support them correctly.