Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second?
*This comes to mind after reading some posts earlier today about the delay between the time commands are issued and implemented* http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Marie Hartinez
Aries Munitions and Defense
559
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP would need twice the number of hamsters?
Surrender is still your slightly less painful option. |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
801
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second?
Nullsec.
The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help
|

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help
That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4590
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work?
Likely nothing that currently exists. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
802
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work?
Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square.
So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not
100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Likely nothing that currently exists.
You really think so? http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression.
So more processing power and memory? I am genuinely ignorant of how CCP runs all this craziness ... not a troll thread, promise :D http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
802
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. So more processing power and memory? I am genuinely ignorant of how CCP runs all this craziness ... not a troll thread, promise :D
Google articles for Sandia Labratory's Red Storm super computer. CCP has next generation hardware....some of the best enterprise level servers on the market....but otherwise the Tranquility cluster is very much a direct descendant of Red Storm.
|

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
thanks for the Red Storm reference... that's quite a machine http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |
|

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
805
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:thanks for the Red Storm reference... that's quite a machine
If you can fine the youtubes from the last couple fanfests CCP Veritas's presentations cover a lot of the hardware, network and middleware layers that are the physical side of the cluster.
Since I'm in the field anyway, I pay VERY close attention to them usually. |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4811
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 02:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Another thing to understand is that EVE's base code is 10 years old... made when the most powerful CPUs were largely single cores. CCP bet on single core processing power to continually increase and wrote the code with that thought in mind.
As a consequence, most of EVE's architecture cannot multi-thread and so cannot take advantage of multiple core CPUs. The DEVs have been trying to rectify this for a few years now... breaking down parts of the system so that they can be processed parallel to each other (see: "Brain in a Box")... but it's slow work. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
806
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 03:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Another thing to understand is that EVE's base code is 10 years old... made when the most powerful CPUs were largely single cores. CCP bet on single core processing power to continually increase and wrote the code with that thought in mind.
As a consequence, most of EVE's architecture cannot multi-thread and so cannot take advantage of multiple core CPUs. The DEVs have been trying to rectify this for a few years now... breaking down parts of the system so that they can be processed parallel to each other (see: "Brain in a Box")... but it's slow work.
Porting from Python to something that can do multi-core work a la Red Hawk would basically be Eve 2.....they would be starting from the ground up with a completely different environment. |

Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1577
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 04:47:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP has said this is impossible. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |

Rich Uncle PennyBags
EVE Online Monopoly
118
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 05:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. So more processing power and memory? I am genuinely ignorant of how CCP runs all this craziness ... not a troll thread, promise :D
I don't think there's been any recent update on server specs... But they're pretty standard server farm stuff. Quite a large one though. I'm recalling a number of around 3500GHz total processing power.
The server they use for reinforcing large fights was talked about at ff a little while ago. It's a military/stock market machine. Cooling requirements include a dedicated air conditioning unit. |

Rich Uncle PennyBags
EVE Online Monopoly
118
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 05:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
I don't think there's been any recent update on server specs... But they're pretty standard server farm stuff. Quite a large one though. I'm recalling a number of around 3500GHz total processing power.
The server they use for reinforcing large fights was talked about at ff a little while ago. It's a military/stock market machine. Cooling requirements include a dedicated air conditioning unit.[/quote]
So, if that has trouble running current fights... Imagine what would be needed to double it. |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
809
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rich Uncle PennyBags wrote:
So, if that has trouble running current fights... Imagine what would be needed to double it.
A true multi-threaded environment....which they can't do without re-writing the engine, like I said Eve 2. Basically what happened was that when these design descisions were being made Intel was forecasting 9GHz processors inside 10 years. Well, current manufacturing processes hit a wall about 4 years ago in the 4.2-4.4 range. The forcast was off by a significant margin.
The way this was mitigated on the hardware end was by multi-threading, which is great, when you aren't running a game up 10 year old code that was written to be strickly single core. The idea of load shedding to 8 cores at a time wasn't even on the radar for 8-9 years after eve's engine was developed. |

James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8921
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
2 Hz would be fine under most conditions. If server load increases then it could go back to 1 Hz and then tidi would kick in at the normal point.
It's not like it would have to be 2 Hz all the time. My EVE Videos 59-15 |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
809
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:2 Hz would be fine under most conditions. If server load increases then it could go back to 1 Hz and then tidi would kick in at the normal point.
It's not like it would have to be 2 Hz all the time.
Dynamic polling rates?
I've had to help debug the code for phased array radars that have to deal with that sort of thing. Basically replace client polling rate with radar dwell search patterns.
Suffice it to say its not that digital in nature a LOT of logic has to be delt with, which causes the same issue, as calculation numbers increase so does processor load. What happens is that you end up with breakpoints where the logic to decide the rate takes up more processing resources than just staying at the lower rate.
Depending on the design margins, this can be a fairly wide range. |

James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8921
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pretty sure the game has to do this anyway due to tidi. My EVE Videos 59-15 |
|

SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2427
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
The honest to god truth is we've only been seeing minute gains in processing power over the last several years. This differs from the last generation where it wasn't unusual to buy a brand new server, plop it in your datacenter then have it be completely outclassed by the next generations models.
Maybe we'll get lucky in the next few years and see another major paradigm shift in how we build CPU's, but right now we're still trying to cram more and more microtransisters into a smaller space, and when that doesn't work we increase cores/cpu count.
Right now the biggest gains in overall computing speed to be had are found not at the compute level, but at the storage/iops level, which isn't as sexy as ghz so no one ever talks about it.
Anyone from CCP care to weigh in on how you structure your storage? :v: |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
809
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 06:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pretty sure the game has to do this anyway due to tidi.
Sort of.
Tidi is a computation to runtime. That is why the client speeds up and slows down in relation to the server, what is being suggested is increasing the server speed in relation to the client.
Depending on how the polling system is designed, its a non-trivial endeavor in master/slave relationships the master is supposed to be the control element. Hence, TiDi making the client run slower in real time, we know they can make the client run faster as well.
Making the client the control element means that you need new logic, and one that is on people's local machine and thus more easily hacked. |

Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
351
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 07:25:00 -
[23] - Quote
If, as they've said, they wan't EVE to keep evolving for the next 20 years, they're not going to have much choice.
The base code will have to be rewritten to multi-thread. It's gonna happen or EVE will die, sooner or later. I kinda wish they'd bite the bullet and just get started on it. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |

Pew Terror
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 08:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression.
Doubling the calculation frequency is a linear progression... Pay more attention in class. |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1247
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 09:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second?
*This comes to mind after reading some posts earlier today about the delay between the time commands are issued and implemented*
CCP already said> NO .. it will NOT happen because DOUBLED server CPU usage. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |

Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 09:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:If, as they've said, they wan't EVE to keep evolving for the next 20 years, they're not going to have much choice.
The base code will have to be rewritten to multi-thread. It's gonna happen or EVE will die, sooner or later. I kinda wish they'd bite the bullet and just get started on it.
There is nothing saying they haven't been working on it. It is just they wouldn't tell you if they were if it is still in the secret squirrel stage.
|

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1247
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 09:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:If, as they've said, they wan't EVE to keep evolving for the next 20 years, they're not going to have much choice.
The base code will have to be rewritten to multi-thread. It's gonna happen or EVE will die, sooner or later. I kinda wish they'd bite the bullet and just get started on it.
People said the same about x86 computers.. yet.. they half survive even nowadays inside your new AMD64 architecture cores.
As long as somethign is lucrative.. it does not die. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |

Adrie Atticus
Unicorn Love Hurts
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 10:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:If, as they've said, they wan't EVE to keep evolving for the next 20 years, they're not going to have much choice.
The base code will have to be rewritten to multi-thread. It's gonna happen or EVE will die, sooner or later. I kinda wish they'd bite the bullet and just get started on it.
Fully synchronized multi-threaded environment requires symmetrical input to work efficiently.
EvE data is most likely not symmetrical by nature and is made like that with the current ticks. As stated previously, the increased amount of processing required when going from 1Hz to 2Hz poling rate would require a big overhaul on how the server farm is set up.
Possible? Yes. Probable? Holy **** debugging multi-threaded code is ugly. |

Grayland Aubaris
Ocellus Technology
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 10:42:00 -
[29] - Quote
This is why not:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=876274
Pasted here:
The key point is a chaos-theory equation system of potential spheres of influence for every actor in a space. Essentially the algorithm goes something like this:
1) Begin server frame. 2) For each ship, calculate a sphere of possible client interaction based on the ship's dimensions, weapons systems, visual range, etc. 3) Using chaos theory equations of possible changes in a ship's behavior before the next time slice, fractally extrude out a set of event cylinders (with hemispherical caps) of the ship's possible influence before the next frame, within the 3D space. 4) Loop through the generated event cylinders and look for intersections. Lump intersecting masses together as "causality bubbles." Sets of events that could potentially influence one another. 5) Rapid cache out the causality bubbles as separate sets and defer the simulation of each bubble out through microtasklets in Stackless Python. 6) Send only the information relating to a player's intersected causality bubble/matrix to that game client. (Dump client's simulation state from pervious frame in lieu of the server's state if they disagree.) 7) Allow the client and server to run the simulation of that causality bubble in parallel. Continue the simulation on the client to make it appear seamless. 8) Yield to other causality bubble simulations in DESTINY and Sleep() for 1000ms. 9) Download any input changes by the ship's pilot from the client at the end of the server frame. As ships do not respond to inputs instantaneously in EVE, this is fine. 10) Push that input into the force equations in the physics simulation for next frame. 11) Push the causality bubbles' simulation result to TRANQUILITY, the actual server Main() process. 12) End server frame, loop while the execution context has not received a shutdown signal.
This prevents you from encountering a runaway O(n^y) algorithm of every ship in a solar system potentially acting on every other, and by only sending updates to clients based on that client's ship's causality bubble, it allows the game to be played on only dial-up modem speeds.
The only downside is in large space battles, in crowded spaces. In these scenarios, the intersection of extruded causality cylinders tends to encompass the entire system. This ship can influence this ship which can influence these ships which influence... etc. So the partitioning of simulation afforded by causality bubbles goes away. They tossed out some similarly awesome-sounding ways to fix this, that are in development, but I'm not allowed to talk about them.
Other really sweet things they did:
- Dynamically generated all solar systems in the universe using actual supercomputer-run disk accretion models. This means every solar system was formed the same way actual astronomical ones are, and no system is artificially held together by anything that would not work in real physics.
- Originally, the random seed to generate the EVE universe was taken from the server's Epoch Time at the start of the universe generation. The guy in charge decided, the night before launch, to regenerate the entire universe at the last minute with the seed "42."
- The location of solar systems relative to one another were modelled after cellular cohesion equations - the same thing that makes gold deposits form, blood vessels to grow in your body, and sets the pattern of the universe filaments as seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
Pew Terror wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. Doubling the calculation frequency is a linear progression... Pay more attention in class.
i think we're square'ing at this point which would not be linear. however, since i'm not mathematically inclined i will leave that debate to the smrt people http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |
|

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Also, much thanks for all of the constructive feedback ... "you don't know what you don't know" ... as they say in the biz 
I'm glad I asked. o/ http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
433
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
Grayland Aubaris wrote: - Dynamically generated all solar systems in the universe using actual supercomputer-run disk accretion models. This means every solar system was formed the same way actual astronomical ones are, and no system is artificially held together by anything that would not work in real physics.
actually this is not true.
there are inconsistencies in the planets types / size / orbits vs the stars (the stars themselves are not valid in fact, between their actuall size vs type).
if you stick to the model, physics say NO (wrong orbit for a temperate vs the size of the star and / or star type for ex.)
if you stick to the datas, physic also say NO (or some planets should then be INSIDE of the star they are orbiting)
so, while i agree to believe they actually used a valid model, the datas associated, whether used for modeling, or in the various infos are not coherent with said model |

Grayland Aubaris
Ocellus Technology
18
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Grayland Aubaris wrote: - Dynamically generated all solar systems in the universe using actual supercomputer-run disk accretion models. This means every solar system was formed the same way actual astronomical ones are, and no system is artificially held together by anything that would not work in real physics.
actually this is not true. there are inconsistencies in the planets types / size / orbits vs the stars (the stars themselves are not valid in fact, between their actuall size vs type). if you stick to the model, physics say NO (wrong orbit for a temperate vs the size of the star and / or star type for ex.) if you stick to the datas, physic also say NO (or some planets should then be INSIDE of the star they are orbiting) so, while i agree to believe they actually used a valid model, the datas associated, whether used for modeling, or in the various infos are not coherent with said model
I was just quoting the article :P I will defer to your knowledge on this one :) |

Pew Terror
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
54
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
Grayland Aubaris wrote:This is why not: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=876274Pasted here: The key point is a chaos-theory equation system of potential spheres of influence for every actor in a space. Essentially the algorithm goes something like this: 1) Begin server frame. 2) For each ship, calculate a sphere of possible client interaction based on the ship's dimensions, weapons systems, visual range, etc. 3) Using chaos theory equations of possible changes in a ship's behavior before the next time slice, fractally extrude out a set of event cylinders (with hemispherical caps) of the ship's possible influence before the next frame, within the 3D space. 4) Loop through the generated event cylinders and look for intersections. Lump intersecting masses together as "causality bubbles." Sets of events that could potentially influence one another. 5) Rapid cache out the causality bubbles as separate sets and defer the simulation of each bubble out through microtasklets in Stackless Python. 6) Send only the information relating to a player's intersected causality bubble/matrix to that game client. (Dump client's simulation state from pervious frame in lieu of the server's state if they disagree.) 7) Allow the client and server to run the simulation of that causality bubble in parallel. Continue the simulation on the client to make it appear seamless. 8) Yield to other causality bubble simulations in DESTINY and Sleep() for 1000ms. 9) Download any input changes by the ship's pilot from the client at the end of the server frame. As ships do not respond to inputs instantaneously in EVE, this is fine. 10) Push that input into the force equations in the physics simulation for next frame. 11) Push the causality bubbles' simulation result to TRANQUILITY, the actual server Main() process. 12) End server frame, loop while the execution context has not received a shutdown signal. This prevents you from encountering a runaway O(n^y) algorithm of every ship in a solar system potentially acting on every other, and by only sending updates to clients based on that client's ship's causality bubble, it allows the game to be played on only dial-up modem speeds. The only downside is in large space battles, in crowded spaces. In these scenarios, the intersection of extruded causality cylinders tends to encompass the entire system. This ship can influence this ship which can influence these ships which influence... etc. So the partitioning of simulation afforded by causality bubbles goes away. They tossed out some similarly awesome-sounding ways to fix this, that are in development, but I'm not allowed to talk about them. Other really sweet things they did: - Dynamically generated all solar systems in the universe using actual supercomputer-run disk accretion models. This means every solar system was formed the same way actual astronomical ones are, and no system is artificially held together by anything that would not work in real physics. - Originally, the random seed to generate the EVE universe was taken from the server's Epoch Time at the start of the universe generation. The guy in charge decided, the night before launch, to regenerate the entire universe at the last minute with the seed "42." - The location of solar systems relative to one another were modelled after cellular cohesion equations - the same thing that makes gold deposits form, blood vessels to grow in your body, and sets the pattern of the universe filaments as seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
For people interested why this is very complicated math without understanding all the terms mentioned here it is very nice to read up on the N-Body Problem. It is actually quite fascinating that simple gravitaional interactions start becoming unsolvably difficult just past 3 objects and simulation systems need to develop quite elaborate algorithms to do approximations. Adding bodies can increase actual complexity quite a lot quicker then just O(n^2). Doing the same thing twice as often though is quite trivially twice as much calculation per unit of time. |

Grayland Aubaris
Ocellus Technology
20
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 14:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
Pew Terror wrote:For people interested why this is very complicated math without understanding all the terms mentioned here it is very nice to read up on the N-Body Problem. It is actually quite fascinating that simple gravitaional interactions start becoming unsolvably difficult just past 3 objects and simulation systems need to develop quite elaborate algorithms to do approximations. Adding bodies can increase actual complexity quite a lot quicker then just O(n^2). Doing the same thing twice as often though is quite trivially twice as much calculation per unit of time.
Next time someone complains that 5000 ship fights causes 10% TiDi to come into affect you need to point them to the above link :) |

Deadonstick
Protagonists Of Doom
5
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:02:00 -
[36] - Quote
I definitely agree this should happen for non-giant population systems. Drone control since the AI patch has been a ***** because it takes a second for your drones to react. |

Desivo Delta Visseroff
Infinite Conquest Li3 Federation
113
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Cheers to the OP! It's cool to see my errant idea sparked a thread. Lets hope the Devs see and respond.
I support this thread |

I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1014
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tranquility could be the forefather of Skynet... maybe we should be worried. |

Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
190
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
Pew Terror wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. Doubling the calculation frequency is a linear progression... Pay more attention in class.
The resulting calculations are not. When you have to relay the information (say a change in a ships vector due to a double-click in space) you have to transmit that to every other ship on grid. It is precisely n^2 increased communication over the network.
Also; drop the attitude. |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
434
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:28:00 -
[40] - Quote
Deadonstick wrote:I definitely agree this should happen for non-giant population systems. Drone control since the AI patch has been a ***** because it takes a second for your drones to react. not only drones, it happen more and more often that you activate a module and it take a second more to actually activate.
when this happen on a gate, where you try to point something, you succesfully ock, you are in range, but the module just doesn't start....... or some odd times, it cycles, but you don't have agression and the tgt still warp out . no stabs involved, talking about shuttles or hictor focus point, also occurs with regular point vs regular ship but then, the wcs is a possibility so hard to tell (well, i'd say if cycle + aggro timer => wcs, if not, server fail).
tbh, this is infuriating, to actually point something and see it go anyway because of this tick crap
point should apply on same tick as lock if preactivated, you lock it with preactivation, point is applyed 100% |
|

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
117
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:37:00 -
[41] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Deadonstick wrote:I definitely agree this should happen for non-giant population systems. Drone control since the AI patch has been a ***** because it takes a second for your drones to react. not only drones, it happen more and more often that you activate a module and it take a second more to actually activate. when this happen on a gate, where you try to point something, you succesfully ock, you are in range, but the module just doesn't start....... or some odd times, it cycles, but you don't have agression and the tgt still warp out . no stabs involved, talking about shuttles or hictor focus point, also occurs with regular point vs regular ship but then, the wcs is a possibility so hard to tell (well, i'd say if cycle + aggro timer => wcs, if not, server fail). tbh, this is infuriating, to actually point something and see it go anyway because of this tick crap point should apply on same tick as lock if preactivated, you lock it with preactivation, point is applyed 100%
Have you noticed this more since Rubicon 1.1? I remember thinking that there was a twofold delay although the module was preheated ... maybe it wasn't "just me being tired." http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Desivo Delta Visseroff
Infinite Conquest Li3 Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:50:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote: Have you noticed this more since Rubicon 1.1? I remember thinking that there was a twofold delay although the module was preheated ... maybe it wasn't "just me being tired."
No, it's not just you. There has been some strange lag since 1.1. Modules, warping, docking and fitting seem to skip/hiccup quite a bit.
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4989
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:51:00 -
[43] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:Pew Terror wrote:
Doubling the calculation frequency is a linear progression... Pay more attention in class.
The resulting calculations are not. When you have to relay the information (say a change in a ships vector due to a double-click in space) you have to transmit that to every other ship on grid. It is precisely n^2 increased communication over the network. Also; drop the attitude.
That's if you increase the number of pilots / entities on grid. Not if you double the frequency of calculation.
Doing the same calculations for one tick now, and then doing it again in .5s or in 5 minutes will use the same amount of processing power for the tick.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
435
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 19:05:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Deadonstick wrote:I definitely agree this should happen for non-giant population systems. Drone control since the AI patch has been a ***** because it takes a second for your drones to react. not only drones, it happen more and more often that you activate a module and it take a second more to actually activate. when this happen on a gate, where you try to point something, you succesfully ock, you are in range, but the module just doesn't start....... or some odd times, it cycles, but you don't have agression and the tgt still warp out . no stabs involved, talking about shuttles or hictor focus point, also occurs with regular point vs regular ship but then, the wcs is a possibility so hard to tell (well, i'd say if cycle + aggro timer => wcs, if not, server fail). tbh, this is infuriating, to actually point something and see it go anyway because of this tick crap point should apply on same tick as lock if preactivated, you lock it with preactivation, point is applyed 100% Have you noticed this more since Rubicon 1.1? I remember thinking that there was a twofold delay although the module was preheated ... maybe it wasn't "just me being tired." i infact started noticing it a year and half ago, but it was a very rare event
but since one year, it is happening more and more
in my corp, we even started using hictors (mostly phobos) because we thought they were stabbed.
of course some were, but some were still evading and since odyssey, it was even more, 1.1, it's a nightmare.
there are "lags" all over the place, before it was only noticeable when timing was really tight like catching a fast ship on a gate, but now, it can be noticed in almost any situation, that the modules are "delayed" whether you turn em on or off.
and no, it is NOT an issue on my side since ppl in alliance reported it also, and we are not in the same area, i'm in france, another one reported from UK, asia, US (indeed we have many of them) or switzerland.
it also seems more "laggy" in some systems, we do live in a small lowsec pocket, the main system is almost fine, but next door, it's to the point that we don't even run anoms or lvl4 anymore.
we already lost some ppl due to the exploration removal, and this is costing us ppl too, when chasing a target we could ccatch easy, like a drake, ppl won't even undock anymore, because "what"s the pooint he'll get away?".
can't blame them tbh.... |

Ricard Chastot
Snake Eye Production
38
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 19:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Porting from Python to something that can do multi-core work a la Red Hawk would basically be Eve 2.....they would be starting from the ground up with a completely different environment.
Python can do multi-core processing just fine if that's how you program with it. Hello ladies (and dudes pretending to be ladies)! Say hello to New Eden's 3rd hottest Intaki! It's me. You can say hello to me. Hi. |

Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
192
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Notorious Fellon wrote:Pew Terror wrote:
Doubling the calculation frequency is a linear progression... Pay more attention in class.
The resulting calculations are not. When you have to relay the information (say a change in a ships vector due to a double-click in space) you have to transmit that to every other ship on grid. It is precisely n^2 increased communication over the network. Also; drop the attitude. That's if you increase the number of pilots / entities on grid. Not if you double the frequency of calculation. Doing the same calculations for one tick now, and then doing it again in .5s or in 5 minutes will use the same amount of processing power for the tick.
Excellent point. I clearly need less caffeine. |

Seras Victoria Egivand
United Star Alliance UNITED STAR FEDERATION
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:12:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ricard Chastot wrote:Onictus wrote:Porting from Python to something that can do multi-core work a la Red Hawk would basically be Eve 2.....they would be starting from the ground up with a completely different environment. Python can do multi-core processing just fine if that's how you program with it.
Python yes.... There still working largely with slack-less python. While in there server cluster they have anywhere from single core to multi core and multi cpu systems, Slack-less python runs everything single threaded... You can spawn micro threads inside of a slackless python environment which is what Tranqulity does but its still running off one core of any given system literately the system would burn out a single core of a processor without touching any other core. During Incarna they were and did Carbion engine and were working on carbon io to address slackless python issue's and allow the servers to run on true multi thread and multi processor hardware.. No idea how far they are into this when you take old code and re write it into newer eco system programming differences crop up stuff that used to work will have issues.
Even if they were to migrate to a new version of slack-less that supports Multi core multi threaded or PyPy you still have the issue alot of your code needs completely re written. |

Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
509
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Batelle wrote:CCP has said this is impossible. without a complete base code rewrite.
ftfy.
Nothing is impossible. It either isn't worth the effort/money or we simply don't know how to do it yet. In this case, not worth the effort to dedicate the entire staff for the year or so required to make it happen.
Free Ripley Weaver! |

Seras Victoria Egivand
United Star Alliance UNITED STAR FEDERATION
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Batelle wrote:CCP has said this is impossible. without a complete base code rewrite. ftfy. Nothing is impossible. It either isn't worth the effort/money or we simply don't know how to do it yet. In this case, not worth the effort to dedicate the entire staff for the year or so required to make it happen.
its at large a software issue not so much hardware. |

Ricard Chastot
Snake Eye Production
38
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:28:00 -
[50] - Quote
Seras Victoria Egivand wrote:Ricard Chastot wrote:Onictus wrote:Porting from Python to something that can do multi-core work a la Red Hawk would basically be Eve 2.....they would be starting from the ground up with a completely different environment. Python can do multi-core processing just fine if that's how you program with it. Python yes.... There still working largely with slack-less python. While in there server cluster they have anywhere from single core to multi core and multi cpu systems, Slack-less python runs everything single threaded... You can spawn micro threads inside of a slackless python environment which is what Tranqulity does but its still running off one core of any given system literately the system would burn out a single core of a processor without touching any other core. During Incarna they were and did Carbion engine and were working on carbon io to address slackless python issue's and allow the servers to run on true multi thread and multi processor hardware.. No idea how far they are into this when you take old code and re write it into newer eco system programming differences crop up stuff that used to work will have issues. Even if they were to migrate to a new version of slack-less that supports Multi core multi threaded or PyPy you still have the issue alot of your code needs completely re written. Even if its the same software... Newer versions bring great features sometimes quality of life but older stuff does break.. That is the nature of programming.
Agree that the code will need to be rewritten of course in order to use multiple cores. There's no getting around that. I don't have any experience with Stackless Python so I can't say how easy it would be to port the code to plain Python or something else that can handle multiple cores. I'd guess it's not easy at all though. Hello ladies (and dudes pretending to be ladies)! Say hello to New Eden's 3rd hottest Intaki! It's me. You can say hello to me. Hi. |
|

Seras Victoria Egivand
United Star Alliance UNITED STAR FEDERATION
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
Just Google slack-less python. and read about it :P Fundamentally its actually really good.. |

Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
814
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 22:13:00 -
[52] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:
The resulting calculations are not. When you have to relay the information (say a change in a ships vector due to a double-click in space) you have to transmit that to every other ship on grid. It is precisely n^2 increased communication over the network.
Also; drop the attitude.
My point exactly. |

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
1071
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 22:15:00 -
[53] - Quote
The answer to the thread title is ugly. Bugs would be introduced, performance would degrade, for a marginal improvement that only insta-locking legions and thrashers would notice. |

Emissary Bartoque
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 22:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Seras Victoria Egivand wrote:Just Google slack-less python. and read about it :P Fundamentally its actually really good.. CCP's issue is there still running largly versions that dont have multi cpu and multi threaded support.. (hardware level)
It is stack less not slack less... |

Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
485
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 23:10:00 -
[55] - Quote
Cheers for all the informative replies! Learned alot from it. Shiigeru wreckage site will be salvaged & cleared in a joint Gallente/Caldari operation. Concord organizes trainingbattle at Yulai |

Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 23:36:00 -
[56] - Quote
Jandice Ymladris wrote:Cheers for all the informative replies! Learned alot from it.
Same here, great thread!
So when will we get EVE 2? They have to make it sooner or later, a decade per seems reasonable.
|

Crakachunky
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 23:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Graphene processors are the next big thing, really efficient use of electrons allowing smaller manufacturing process and puts a massive dent in heat problems allows stupid high processor speeds, I assume ccp are waiting for those |

Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
422
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 23:58:00 -
[58] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:The answer to the thread title is ugly. Bugs would be introduced, performance would degrade, for a marginal improvement that only insta-locking legions and thrashers would notice.
Yes an "instalock" Thrasher setup right will have you waiting a tick sometimes.
|

Seras Victoria Egivand
United Star Alliance UNITED STAR FEDERATION
45
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 00:47:00 -
[59] - Quote
Emissary Bartoque wrote:Seras Victoria Egivand wrote:Just Google slack-less python. and read about it :P Fundamentally its actually really good.. CCP's issue is there still running largly versions that dont have multi cpu and multi threaded support.. (hardware level) It is stack less not slack less...
sorry stupid auto correct |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 12:25:00 -
[60] - Quote
I noticed that when my modules were preheated the 1tick-delay was not noticeable at all ... could this be because all of the input was processed at the same time rather than getting target lock and then applying module effect?
... I'm not really sure of the right way to word that ^ ... http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |
|

seth Hendar
I love you miners
445
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 14:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:I noticed that when my modules were preheated the 1tick-delay was not noticeable at all ... could this be because all of the input was processed at the same time rather than getting target lock and then applying module effect?
... I'm not really sure of the right way to word that ^ ... just checked, and whther a point is preheated or not, it take at least 2 ticks to actually apply, 1 for lock if lock < 1s (in fact, minimum lock time is 1sec as per the srver tick), then next tick, point apply.
wich mean, anything warping under 2 sec is uncatchable, and under 3 sec almost incatchable at a gate (because of the reaction time when he decloack).
as now, any ceptor / shuttle / pod (and some fast frig) cannot be catched unless smartbomb / bomb / bubble if the first order given is a "warp to" order (and provided they are still cloacked when order is issued)
it is so bad that such fast entitys often show up on overview being 200+ km away @ 3500+ m/s (i.e. already in warp)
and yet i have a very good connection, with a 16ms +- ping, i can't imagine the nightmare for AUS or NZ ppl for example, when their ping adds to the reaction time and stuff
just for giggle, i tested, and a cynabal flown by a pilot with a full low grade nomad, shield dps fit witha t1 polycarbon rig and a nanofiber align in 1.97s..... so even some cruisers can achieve it
Quote: [Cynabal, test]
4x 425mm AutoCannon II (Barrage M) Medium Energy Neutralizer II
2x Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II 10MN Microwarpdrive II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II 2x Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I 2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
|

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 18:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:I noticed that when my modules were preheated the 1tick-delay was not noticeable at all ... could this be because all of the input was processed at the same time rather than getting target lock and then applying module effect?
... I'm not really sure of the right way to word that ^ ... just checked, and whther a point is preheated or not, it take at least 2 ticks to actually apply, 1 for lock if lock < 1s (in fact, minimum lock time is 1sec as per the srver tick), then next tick, point apply. wich mean, anything warping under 2 sec is uncatchable, and under 3 sec almost incatchable at a gate (because of the reaction time when he decloack). as now, any ceptor / shuttle / pod (and some fast frig) cannot be catched unless smartbomb / bomb / bubble if the first order given is a "warp to" order (and provided they are still cloacked when order is issued) it is so bad that such fast entitys often show up on overview being 200+ km away @ 3500+ m/s (i.e. already in warp) and yet i have a very good connection, with a 16ms +- ping, i can't imagine the nightmare for AUS or NZ ppl for example, when their ping adds to the reaction time and stuff just for giggle, i tested, and a cynabal flown by a pilot with a full low grade nomad, shield dps fit witha t1 polycarbon rig and a nanofiber align in 1.97s..... so even some cruisers can achieve it  Quote: [Cynabal, test]
4x 425mm AutoCannon II (Barrage M) Medium Energy Neutralizer II
2x Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II 10MN Microwarpdrive II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II 2x Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I 2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
KAAAAAAHHNN!!!!!!!!  http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

Paul Panala
Circulus Exousias Sentinel Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 20:08:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Likely nothing that currently exists.
No! It is silly to think a game like Eve requires more power than anything else the world has ever seen. It is just a matter of having enough power. The question is weather it is cost effective for CCP to do so.
CCP should consider moving their data center to Amazon to take advantage of spot pricing on AWS servers. That way instead of buying a ton of servers that are overkill 90% of the time, you only pay for server time as needed. They could do some really cool stuff like automatically bring additional nodes online based on the number of players in an area.
I know that would be a huge undertaking, but if Amazon works for Netflix, I am sure it could work for CCP. |

BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 20:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. Yes, but if you take the number of quamtum calculations and multiply it by a finite number of idioms, then the resulting equation is equal to the number of server ticks multiplied by the quantum capacitors ability to keep pace with the full cycles of the square root of the hypotinuse. And all this depends on the processing power of the current hardware minus the overhead of the cycles lost in heat generating calculations of the parallel equations... |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 11:45:00 -
[65] - Quote
BrundleMeth wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Network performance isn't the issue. Raw number of calculations per second is. When you double the polling rate the absolute number of calculations increases to the square. So say you have 400 pilots scapping, and say (totally made up number) that it requires 100,000 calculations a second. This is firing solution, ship vectors, bumping, refits, damage calculations, bonuses going up and down, session calculations, drawing models and what not 100,000 square is 10 billion, its not a linear progression. Yes, but if you take the number of quamtum calculations and multiply it by a finite number of idioms, then the resulting equation is equal to the number of server ticks multiplied by the quantum capacitors ability to keep pace with the full cycles of the square root of the hypotinuse. And all this depends on the processing power of the current hardware minus the overhead of the cycles lost in heat generating calculations of the parallel equations...
I wish that I could agree with you ... but I have no idea what you just said. http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
446
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 13:53:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:KAAAAAAHHNN!!!!!!!!  wut?  |

Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction The Devil's Warrior Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 14:04:00 -
[67] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:KAAAAAAHHNN!!!!!!!!  wut? 
That was a Star Trek reference to the adversarial relationship between JT Kirk and Kahn. The underlying implication is that, like Kirk, I have too many feelz and need to vent my frustration with not having found a way around 2-tick clicking associated with a 1Hz cycle.
*also, thank you for testing my hypothesis! http://www.devilswarrior.info/kb |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
448
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 14:16:00 -
[68] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:KAAAAAAHHNN!!!!!!!!  wut?  That was a Star Trek reference to the adversarial relationship between JT Kirk and Kahn. The underlying implication is that, like Kirk, I have too many feelz and need to vent my frustration with not having found a way around 2-tick clicking associated with a 1Hz cycle. *also, thank you for testing my hypothesis! ha ok, got it (, too late tho, thx coffee yeah \o/ )
np, i'm struggling with this frustration too for, like i said, more than a year, hence why i try anything that could solve the issue, unfortunately, only CCP can do, and they are not motivated about it it seems...... |

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
1253
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 17:49:00 -
[69] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Likely nothing that currently exists. You really think so? Meet TQ. TQ is a Beast. To double the polling rate, you'd need *four* such beasts. How much are you willing to pay per sub to support such a monster? |

Frostys Virpio
IRS Fraud
1003
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 18:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:Meet TQ. TQ is a Beast. To double the polling rate, you'd need *four* such beasts. How much are you willing to pay per sub to support such a monster?
More like "How much are you willing to pay your subs to finance the R&D required to design/manufacture CPU going at 4 time the current wall." since we currently can't offload the process to other cores so adding a load balancing infrastructure is bound to be just as fruitless.
CCP was awoxed a long time ago when Intel and AMD quit the GHz race. |
|

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
1253
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 18:27:00 -
[71] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Plastic Psycho wrote:Meet TQ. TQ is a Beast. To double the polling rate, you'd need *four* such beasts. How much are you willing to pay per sub to support such a monster? More like "How much are you willing to pay your subs to finance the R&D required to design/manufacture CPU going at 4 time the current wall." since we currently can't offload the process to other cores so adding a load balancing infrastructure is bound to be just as fruitless. CCP was awoxed a long time ago when Intel and AMD quit the GHz race. Fair point. |

seth Hendar
I love you miners
453
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 14:05:00 -
[72] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:Meet TQ. TQ is a Beast. To double the polling rate, you'd need *four* such beasts. How much are you willing to pay per sub to support such a monster? while i agree the cluster is a really powerfull beast, and it would cost a freakin lot to upgrade it, remember that it is under used badly because of the base code not being able to use several core or span throught several blades.
this is imao where the work need to be done, granted it might not be easy, but it is required if eve wants to keep evolving.
the current situation is really not good, with tidi kicking all over the place, if the code would allow dynamic server ressources allocation, eve online would be really badass (yeah, even more badass, can you picture that?).
and then, massive battles like asakai and alike would probably not even require TIDI, out of the few seconds required for the load to be spreaded across the hardware.....
of course, under such conditions, 2hz server tick would be easier to implement (well, it is easy, it's just that it's not a good idea given the curent situation)
/me dreams of a cuda / opencl server side code for eve online THAT would be.....incredibly FAST |

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
1253
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:59:00 -
[73] - Quote
Code first, then we'll talk about changing the polling rate.
Cleaning up the code is, in itself, a massive challenge that costs a lot of money... They do it as they can. |

Rainbow Dash
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 22:20:00 -
[74] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Onictus wrote:Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:What is the barrier to increasing server response time to every half second instead of every one second? Nullsec. The servers already struggle over 1000 pilots with a 1Hz tick, exponentially increasing client polling simply won't help That's a product of design. What network infrastructure would be needed to make it work? Likely nothing that currently exists. No! It is silly to think a game like Eve requires more power than anything else the world has ever seen. It is just a matter of having enough power. The question is weather it is cost effective for CCP to do so. CCP should consider moving their data center to Amazon to take advantage of spot pricing on AWS servers. That way instead of buying a ton of servers that are overkill 90% of the time, you only pay for server time as needed. They could do some really cool stuff like automatically bring additional nodes online based on the number of players in an area. I know that would be a huge undertaking, but if Amazon works for Netflix, I am sure it could work for CCP.
Now we get to play a fun game: is this guy joking or an idiot? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |