Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2009 01:59:12 schrieb Zarel:
> 2009/3/18 Dennis Schridde :
> > Make it 10, at least.
> > It could happen that the peer is under load, has some weird network setup
> > which needs more time, or whatever.
>
> If the peer is _that_ under load, that peer isn't going to be able t
2009/3/18 Dennis Schridde :
> Make it 10, at least.
> It could happen that the peer is under load, has some weird network setup
> which needs more time, or whatever.
If the peer is _that_ under load, that peer isn't going to be able to
play Warzone very well.
2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
> _YOU_ can do
On 3/18/09, Zarel wrote:
> 2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
>
> > Well, it does that in the console via LOG_ERROR... doing that in the
> > GUI... is not going to happen anytime soon.
>
>
> Oh, come on. So the user just gets kicked out, no explanation why? It
> _better_ go in the GUI.
_YOU_ can do it then
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2009 22:05:15 schrieb Zarel:
> 2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
> > Well, it does that in the console via LOG_ERROR... doing that in the
> > GUI... is not going to happen anytime soon.
>
> Oh, come on. So the user just gets kicked out, no explanation why? It
> _better_ go in the GUI.
>
2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
> Well, it does that in the console via LOG_ERROR... doing that in the
> GUI... is not going to happen anytime soon.
Oh, come on. So the user just gets kicked out, no explanation why? It
_better_ go in the GUI.
> Ha! Ok, then 4 secs. ;)
I thought Warzone's game code had 1
On 3/18/09, Zarel wrote:
> 2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
>
> > Right now, we only check on the version string. All the other stuff
> > we send isn't used.
> >
> > I am also not sure about the time period to wait before we auto kick
> > someone. Right now, it is set to 7secs.
> >
> > Logic is, pla
2009/3/18 bugs buggy :
> Right now, we only check on the version string. All the other stuff
> we send isn't used.
>
> I am also not sure about the time period to wait before we auto kick
> someone. Right now, it is set to 7secs.
>
> Logic is, player joins. Host sends version request query. If
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Dump from IRC:
>
> Use a simple number (int), which we increment everytime we change the netcode
> in an incompatible way.
> Use a 2nd number in addition, which we increment if some compatible
> enhancement happens. (And reset when we increment the major ve
Hi,
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 09:02 +0100, Kreuvf wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Freddie Witherden wrote:
> > I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
> What do you do when switching to another VCS? That value must be
> VCS-independent. And if I u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Freddie Witherden wrote:
> I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
What do you do when switching to another VCS? That value must be
VCS-independent. And if I understand the git docs correctly (haven't really read
much of it :X)
Hi all,
> Proposed constants:
> NETCODE_VERSION_MAJOR=0, NETCODE_VERSION_MINOR=0, DATA_VERSION="2.2"
> (With the latter being the one used to concat mod version strings onto.)
I'd rather just use the SVN revision of the game. It is simpler.
Furthermore there are a lot of changes we could make to
Dump from IRC:
Use a simple number (int), which we increment everytime we change the netcode
in an incompatible way.
Use a 2nd number in addition, which we increment if some compatible
enhancement happens. (And reset when we increment the major version.)
(That is in fact similar to what is done
On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:14, bugs buggy wrote:
> On 3/14/09, Christian Ohm wrote:
> > Could the version check be done in the lobby server?
>
> I thought of that as well, but the GAMESTRUCT is a fixed size, and if
> we changed it, it will do screwy things to pre 2.1.3 clients.
> Unless of
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 16:53:21 schrieb bugs buggy:
>
> > On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
> > > > bugs buggy wrote:
> > > > > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
> > >
> > > Ther
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 16:53:21 schrieb bugs buggy:
> On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
> > > bugs buggy wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
> >
> > There comes something to my mind:
> > If version checking is
On 3/14/09, Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:53, bugs buggy wrote:
> > On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
> > >
> > > > bugs buggy wrote:
> > > > > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
> > >
> > >
On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:53, bugs buggy wrote:
> On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
> >
> > > bugs buggy wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
> >
> > There comes something to my mind:
> > If version checkin
On 3/14/09, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
>
> > bugs buggy wrote:
> > > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
>
> There comes something to my mind:
> If version checking is implemented in 2.1.3, it should be able to figure out
> that 2.1.
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 10:28:10 schrieb Kreuvf:
> bugs buggy wrote:
> > Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
There comes something to my mind:
If version checking is implemented in 2.1.3, it should be able to figure out
that 2.1.2 (and prior) do not support a versioned network proto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
bugs buggy wrote:
> Anyone have any opinions on what should be done?
Another option: How about adding version checking stuff to 2.1.3 and then
releasing 2.1.3 + some non-netcode fixes? When releasing 2.1.3 add information
on our plans for 2.1.4 (see be
2009/3/13 bugs buggy :
> I finally found the cause for people getting disconnected for no
> apparent reason (especially in longer games).
> The fix is simple enough, but the issue is, we can't stop 2.1.2 people
> from connecting to 2.1.3 people. And since the main point of the fix
> is to allow pe
Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 02:11:56 schrieb bugs buggy:
> I finally found the cause for people getting disconnected for no
> apparent reason (especially in longer games).
I would go with releasing the fix in 2.2 and not in 2.1 then.
And we finally need some version checking code to prevent such
inc
I finally found the cause for people getting disconnected for no
apparent reason (especially in longer games).
The fix is simple enough, but the issue is, we can't stop 2.1.2 people
from connecting to 2.1.3 people. And since the main point of the fix
is to allow people to NOT drop connections, I d
23 matches
Mail list logo
