| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
   |
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:27:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
How unreasonable is it that after 10 years the entire code is rewritten into the latest code languages?
Upgrade hardware all you want but you gotta remember the late 90s that was like windows ME and NT days... come on its time for an overhaul.
non-programmer spotted.
This guy sums it up nicely.
Stackless python is fairly new. And fairly old languages like C++ would be MUCH better for such tasks, but they require a lot more work.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:27:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
How unreasonable is it that after 10 years the entire code is rewritten into the latest code languages?
Upgrade hardware all you want but you gotta remember the late 90s that was like windows ME and NT days... come on its time for an overhaul.
CCP is already running the latest version of this programming language. They are also constantly altering and adjusting their internal code to enhance performance, including a major re-write of the network stack which is in testing on SISI.
Originally by: Audri Fisher
On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Kaimon ValDreth
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:31:00 -
[63]
Yeah your right Im not a programmer however if stackless python can't support any of the newer technologies then...?
 |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:34:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
Yeah your right Im not a programmer however if stackless python can't support any of the newer technologies then...?
It all comes down to how much time CCP wants to spend on it.
|
Kaimon ValDreth
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:38:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Kaimon ValDreth on 24/04/2008 15:40:25
Edited by: Kaimon ValDreth on 24/04/2008 15:39:07
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
Yeah your right Im not a programmer however if stackless python can't support any of the newer technologies then...?
It all comes down to how much time CCP wants to spend on it.
Precisely this is what I was asking, is it unreasonable to rewrite the code or chose different languages, ultimately reinvest on bringing the game up to date utilizing all the newer technologies they have at their disposal. After many years of just tweaks and rewriting current older code that cannot utilize this technology wouldn't this be a worthwhile investment into the game if they plan on keeping it around for awhile?
A 10 year lifespan on a game code is freeking amazing when compared to other games.
Perhaps reinventing the game could spark new life in the game... possibly bring in new people... yes new people not more alts... would need less alts if we had more people =)
people do not = bots
|
ReallyDeadKenny
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:18:00 -
[66]
That would cost them a ton of money for minimal improvement...
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:20:00 -
[67]
You would also be very amazed at the number of games that do NOT support multiple threads due to timing issues. It isn't as simple as a check box in the compiler telling it to be multi-cpu aware, it is a major (like start from the beginning) re-write.
Originally by: Audri Fisher
On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Luh Windan
Minmatar
Republic University
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:29:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Luh Windan on 24/04/2008 16:29:48
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
[
Precisely this is what I was asking, is it unreasonable to rewrite the code or chose different languages, ultimately reinvest on bringing the game up to date utilizing all the newer technologies they have at their disposal. After many years of just tweaks and rewriting current older code that cannot utilize this technology wouldn't this be a worthwhile investment into the game if they plan on keeping it around for awhile?
While not wanting to sully this thread overly with facts - multi process is the future of scaling and not threading. Stackless is not the issue here - in fact it supports modern thinking on scaling very well. Is it worth re-writing the client to be multi process to take advantage of multi core machines? I guess the thing you would need to know to answer this is what the average players machine looks like AND how much benefit you would get compared say to continued improvements on the servers. Given we have neither of those pieces of information then ranting and raving at CCP for not building it right seems (especially when most of the people in this thread have no idea what they are talking about) seems a little presumptuous.
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
Perhaps reinventing the game could spark new life in the game... possibly bring in new people
Yes because this game is clearly dying a death.
Mind you I am only new here myself - I wonder who's alt I am?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:38:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Luh Windan
Edited by: Luh Windan on 24/04/2008 16:29:48
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
[
Precisely this is what I was asking, is it unreasonable to rewrite the code or chose different languages, ultimately reinvest on bringing the game up to date utilizing all the newer technologies they have at their disposal. After many years of just tweaks and rewriting current older code that cannot utilize this technology wouldn't this be a worthwhile investment into the game if they plan on keeping it around for awhile?
While not wanting to sully this thread overly with facts - multi process is the future of scaling and not threading. Stackless is not the issue here - in fact it supports modern thinking on scaling very well. Is it worth re-writing the client to be multi process to take advantage of multi core machines? I guess the thing you would need to know to answer this is what the average players machine looks like AND how much benefit you would get compared say to continued improvements on the servers. Given we have neither of those pieces of information then ranting and raving at CCP for not building it right seems (especially when most of the people in this thread have no idea what they are talking about) seems a little presumptuous.
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
Perhaps reinventing the game could spark new life in the game... possibly bring in new people
Yes because this game is clearly dying a death.
Mind you I am only new here myself - I wonder who's alt I am?
I'm sorry, but was this post a joke?
Multi-process can't be compared to multithreaded programs. |
Luh Windan
Minmatar
Republic University
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:44:00 -
[70]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I'm sorry, but was this post a joke?
Multi-process can't be compared to multithreaded programs.
Oh sorry I (and my company) only build large multi machine , many user systems for a living so I clearly don't know what I am talking about.
Do a little research - an awful lot of people are getting a lot more milage out of multiprocess shared nothing systems. And while we are at it well written single threaded asynchronous systems are much more reliable and performant where the system is I/O bound - like for example, oh I don't know a network game client. |
Angela Toren
Amarr
Toren Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 10:19:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
How unreasonable is it that after 10 years the entire code is rewritten into the latest code languages?
Upgrade hardware all you want but you gotta remember the late 90s that was like windows ME and NT days... come on its time for an overhaul.
Yes but what you fail to realise is that the game is now LIVE. That severely limits how much time and programmers you can throw at such a project. Sooner or later it has to be done esp if the sub rate climbs after factional warefare and ambulation. In fact i dread to think of how the servers will cope with all the extra pew pew when factional warfare comes to town.
Don't worry, one day we will see 500 v 500 battles, they will be intense and last for hours!
_______
Oh Mindy... |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 10:52:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Angela Toren
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
How unreasonable is it that after 10 years the entire code is rewritten into the latest code languages?
Upgrade hardware all you want but you gotta remember the late 90s that was like windows ME and NT days... come on its time for an overhaul.
Yes but what you fail to realise is that the game is now LIVE. That severely limits how much time and programmers you can throw at such a project. Sooner or later it has to be done esp if the sub rate climbs after factional warefare and ambulation. In fact i dread to think of how the servers will cope with all the extra pew pew when factional warfare comes to town.
Don't worry, one day we will see 500 v 500 battles, they will be intense and last for hours!
I hope that CCP will take the server down for 3 days in a row, and patch the whole thing up with this summers expansion, and upgrade the server with the infiniband solution, and deploy the stack which will allow for services to be moved between nodes.
At that point, we COULD see 500 v 500 be more feasible. Of course, at this point we can only speculate about how much it can scale. But we will have to see.
I think the future is bright. It's just a matter of time! 
|
Issei
Gallente
Isotope Trading Co
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 16:58:00 -
[73]
Sorry if my q may seem a bit stupid, but, regardless of whether multi-core systems are better when running a single instance of eve or not, they are still better when running a lot of them, right?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 17:00:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Issei
Sorry if my q may seem a bit stupid, but, regardless of whether multi-core systems are better when running a single instance of eve or not, they are still better when running a lot of them, right?
The bottleneck will quickly become your graphics card, rather than your CPU.
But yes, in this case, having a multi- or quad-core system, is, in theory, better for multitasking with 2 client.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |