Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 19:35:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Nitemare111 Lag = Not CCP's fault.
Only imbeciles ever say this.
If they designed a single shard system that was incapable of handling the numbers of players that can easily be found wanting to congregate, then it's their exclusively their failing.
Similarly brain dead arguments are trotted out whenever lag in jita is brought up. It's CCP that failed to provide a centralized market that could handle the volumes of players that would predictably and inevitably congregate in a single place to do business.
It's predictable, documented, human behavior that they failed to account for. Lag from too many people is the same damn thing.
It's not the players' fault for wanting what they were promised. A single shard sandbox with Massive battles. I've never been in a big battle that was exciting beyond not knowing that my ship is already dead and I don't know it yet due to lag.
It is a Massively Multiplayer Online Rolplaying Game isn't it? Well it is, if you throw out the massive part outside of Jita. Specific systems are on their own nodes beefy nodes, but if you're trying to have a massive fleet battle in a different system, you're SOL. The hardware isn't there, and the software is incapable of moving the battle to nodes that can handle the sudden huge load while the system is live. Such systems do exist, even outside the military. But Tranquility isn't on one of them.
Couldn't you trace all of that back to CCP not planning on using multi-core systems for their hardware? While it was a bad decision, I don't think it's reason to decry all of CCP as coding n00bz who are uninterested in fixing the game. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 19:36:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Nitemare111 Lag = Not CCP's fault.
Only imbeciles ever say this.
If they designed a single shard system that was incapable of handling the numbers of players that can easily be found wanting to congregate, then it's their exclusively their failing.
Similarly brain dead arguments are trotted out whenever lag in jita is brought up. It's CCP that failed to provide a centralized market that could handle the volumes of players that would predictably and inevitably congregate in a single place to do business.
It's predictable, documented, human behavior that they failed to account for. Lag from too many people is the same damn thing.
It's not the players' fault for wanting what they were promised. A single shard sandbox with Massive battles. I've never been in a big battle that was exciting beyond not knowing that my ship is already dead and I don't know it yet due to lag.
It is a Massively Multiplayer Online Rolplaying Game isn't it? Well it is, if you throw out the massive part outside of Jita. Specific systems are on their own nodes beefy nodes, but if you're trying to have a massive fleet battle in a different system, you're SOL. The hardware isn't there, and the software is incapable of moving the battle to nodes that can handle the sudden huge load while the system is live. Such systems do exist, even outside the military. But Tranquility isn't on one of them.
Some players want massive battles. Others hugely prefer engagements of around 5-12 per side. The skills and fittings of individual players are of diminishing importance as the size of their fleet increases. At the extreme, the only skill really involved in a 500vs500 is that of the 2 FCs. The other 998 guys are little more spectators.
10vs10 EvE works fine. So although I'd be very happy if CCP were to upgrade the doohickys widgets and hamsters required to enable those, it's not my highest priority.
And as noted above, I'm in the majority in this. Just a thought.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Stepford Wife
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:00:00 -
[333]
AP is right, station crap is not needed.
|
Xaen
Caldari Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:03:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Malcanis Some players want massive battles. Others hugely prefer engagements of around 5-12 per side. The skills and fittings of individual players are of diminishing importance as the size of their fleet increases. At the extreme, the only skill really involved in a 500vs500 is that of the 2 FCs. The other 998 guys are little more spectators.
10vs10 EvE works fine. So although I'd be very happy if CCP were to upgrade the doohickys widgets and hamsters required to enable those, it's not my highest priority.
And as noted above, I'm in the majority in this. Just a thought.
It's not my highest priority either. But it's more important to me than farting around in stations is. - Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
doichin
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:16:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Guillight BLue
But what YOU ALL PEOPLE fail misserably at and DO NOT realise is that there isn't any PC yet you can install at home that can draw a 1000 ships, with all its Trinity glory, lightning effects and particle effects WITHOUT lagging the hell out of your computer!
Please don't confuse the issue. We are talking about 200 v 200 battles lagging due to server lag. Anyone in a fleet battle will have all effects turned off, be zoomed all the way out with no brackets. Even a 3 year old machine will manage 100 fps like this as there is nothing to draw.
It still takes 2 minutes to activate a module, or select something in the overview though - because it is the server lagging, nothing to do with your PC or network link.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:22:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Tarminic Much computing ignorance in this thread.
To summarize: -There is no civilian server that can handle the massive battles in EVE without significant amounts of lag
Where do you "summarize" this nonsense from? CCP's server code is just clunky old single-threaded Python code, that's the whole problem at hand. Nowdays you can get "civilian" servers with 16 cores everywhere and CCP's crummy code can't benefit from it.
Don't make stupid broad statements like "there is no ..." when in fact the problem is "CCP's code is currently not able to ...".
Did you notice anywhere in that summary that I said that it's not possible?
I said, specifically, "There is no civilian server that can handle the massive battles in EVE without significant amounts of lag." I never said why that's the case, because it was a summary.
Yes, most of the reason is because CCP can't multithread their server code, and won't be able to for some time (according to one of the devs). I wasn't defending CCP or making excuses for them.
My statement still stands. Take EVE's software architecture and put it on any civilian server in the world and it won't fare any better.
So you're arguing a straw man argument? Who here is suggesting CCP upgrade to the latest Dell?
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:24:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Guillight BLue Edited by: Guillight BLue on 17/07/2008 17:39:50
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Tarminic Much computing ignorance in this thread.
To summarize: -There is no civilian server that can handle the massive battles in EVE without significant amounts of lag
Where do you "summarize" this nonsense from? CCP's server code is just clunky old single-threaded Python code, that's the whole problem at hand. Nowdays you can get "civilian" servers with 16 cores everywhere and CCP's crummy code can't benefit from it.
Don't make stupid broad statements like "there is no ..." when in fact the problem is "CCP's code is currently not able to ...".
Did you notice anywhere in that summary that I said that it's not possible?
I said, specifically, "There is no civilian server that can handle the massive battles in EVE without significant amounts of lag." I never said why that's the case, because it was a summary.
Yes, most of the reason is because CCP can't multithread their server code, and won't be able to for some time (according to one of the devs). I wasn't defending CCP or making excuses for them.
My statement still stands. Take EVE's software architecture and put it on any civilian server in the world and it won't fare any better.
Just leave it Tarminic. Lazuran is just a silly little troll only reading one line of your and my posts, missinterpret them and then answers with bull, because he has no clue whatsoever what he's talking about.
One last statement towards Lazuran, as Im done with him:
Even if CCP rewrites to code (wich they are doing to my knowledge) so they can fully utilize multicore CPU's, it will still NOT be the solution to make it possible on the client side!
And I did NOT come up with the 500 versus 500 battles, but the OP did and many other ignorant people in this topic, demanding it from CCP, while having no clue that with todays technology (Again from both Server side AS client side!!) it's just NOT possible without LAG!
It's NOT only about graphics, it's all the complex processing that takes place in such battles and your client that constantly needs to be updated with just TOO much data! Not to mention all the info in your UI overview!
Cheers
When the problem becomes my CPU being max'd out then it'll be a client side issue. That's not the case at all. Another straw man argument.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:27:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Malcanis
Flaming people for something they did not actually say makes one look smart.
You look like a genius right now.
You said its "technical limitations" and that its not an issue of money or priority. So then, rather than us putting words in your mouth, why don't you explain exactly what the technical limitation is that prevents a server from handling requests from 100-1000 ships?
Exactly what's a reasonable modern day figure for requests per second for a "Massive" online game?
|
Chinger
Caldari Cold Fury Coalition Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:29:00 -
[339]
I enjoy sushi. Do you think that we can eat sushi in station?
|
Guillight BLue
Gallente Secret Society
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:30:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Guillight BLue on 17/07/2008 20:30:32
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
When the problem becomes my CPU being max'd out then it'll be a client side issue. That's not the case at all. Another straw man argument.
LOL! You seriously want me to comment on this silly counter-argument? Pretty impressive you can run EVE Online on your CPU only.
Enough said.
|
|
Sha Dar
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:53:00 -
[341]
Sarcasm
The OP doesn't understand the wonderful opportunity ccp is giving us. We get the honour of paying to be beta testers for their new MMO
/Sarcasm -
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 20:55:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence So you're arguing a straw man argument? Who here is suggesting CCP upgrade to the latest Dell?
I have to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Skipdog
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 21:15:00 -
[343]
Just wanted to say that I could care less about walking around in stations. I cannot fathom why so many people believe it will be "fun". It will be interesting for maybe 30 minutes and then you will realize that it isn't fun to walk around and chat and nobody cares what your character looks like. This isn't second life.
I must admit, I am a bit dismayed that my subscription money is going into something like this. You can't tell me "oh they are a different team" because it still means that they are using my money to do this and that money could have gone towards much better game improvements.
|
Dzajic
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 21:52:00 -
[344]
Wait, they couldn't have possibly really written server code in Python? You are joking, right?
|
Macmuelli
Gallente Meltd0wn Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 22:23:00 -
[345]
I personal see-(hope) "Walking in station" is the base for upcoming things.
And if the base is perfect. U will be open for at least (perhaps) one day pve/ pvp on stations. Then it could be ready for Planet interaction. This should be the way and meaning of Walking in station.
The foundation stone.
my personal minds
breg
mac
HStt de MSkelb÷rger ierst n Menschen in sin Haart inschlottn, denn kann diese Mensch sich opn Meckelb÷rger full und gonz verlatten."
evefan since 2003 |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 23:15:00 -
[346]
Shit, I still remember the days when an 8vs8 CS server would be zomgbig.
16vs16 in the first few versions of Operation flashpoint? yeah right, no wai that would work without half the team running around with at least half a sec lagging behind.
"boohoo i lagged out when there was 400 people on grid"
KIDS THESE DAYS HAVE IT TO GOOD! We had to finish games that had "easy modes" that make halo 3 on legendary look like a friggin walk in the park! we had to fumble our way to victory with d-pads that left painful marks on your thumbs, because back then, you know, japan obviously wasnt able to produce responsive microswitches and soft springs! I STILL HAVE THOSE TINY ARROWS VISIBLE ON MY THUMBS.
You had to play 25 hours straight, in a single session, if you wanted to finish that game. There weren't any fancy pantsy save slots for sissies. We kept going til the end and we LIKED it.
There was a time when the idea of "multiplayer" just meant the game would issue you two seperate highscore counters and force you to take turns while playing, minimizing the chance that children kill each other over the controller.
So let me say it again; KIDS THESE DAYS
|
Poast Warrior
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 23:29:00 -
[347]
I must admit I'm in the "how useless, concentrate on fixing game issues instead" group.
That being said, It'll be really neat to walk around and do things in station.
For like 15 minutes.
I also agree with what someone above said; people will have less of a reason to undock, which = less pew pew, which is bad.
|
Karlemgne
The Black Fleet Nex Super Vos
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:37:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Karlemgne Number two, BoB isn't living up to that slanderous title BoD. If you were a dev, or knew a dev, you'd realize how stupid people are when they say stuff like "fix the game before you add new content!!!" If CCP were to fix all of the known issues (probably numbering anywere from 20 thousand to 40 thousand) you'd never see new content--it would take years to "fix" all the bugs.
Not to mention that artists, modelers, writers, etc, don't fix bugs. They create new content. Not everyone that works for a game company is a programmer.
You are absolutely correct. My apologies to the artists out there who work for game companies. Although I would like to point out that video game development, as a whole, is a pretty complex process. Most game "designers" don't know any code, and not all bugs require a coder to fix. I am sure there are many designers and artists out there assigned to fixing game play and art asset issues.
Cheers,
-Karlemgne
|
Karlemgne
The Black Fleet Nex Super Vos
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:42:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Danton Marcellus It has to do with EVE becoming what the devs can and will do with it and maybe a little influenced by their customers sane arguments. Not the 'I wants MOAR kittens with pew pew oh noes !!!111eleventy1 some1 is taking our shit!!! IT'S CAPS OBEY ME!' mindlocked blob of simpletons think EVE should be.
It's generally nothing like that. Most of us who don't give a crap about ambulation want broken things fixed. We don't want more stuff. Just working stuff.
See my prievious post on this issue. I used to work in the video game industry, on an MMO that I won't name. When I left said company, said MMO had 40,000 known issues in the bug tracking database. If the company I worked for simply stopped adding new content, and "fixed" every bug in the game, it would have taken at least two years.
In eve that would mean no new content, no new ships, no new missions, no game balancing issues (2mwds per ship anyone) and a dead game.
MMOs don't work like that. There is a conscious effort to fix critical errors and gameplay issues, but fixing everything would just be dumb and kill your game and, most likely, your company.
-K
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:44:00 -
[350]
I dunno if this has been noted before, but the thread should be dead. OP has no clue what he's talking about.
Walking in stations is being built for CCP's other game based on vampire: the masquerade. They were building an avatar based engine anyway, and thought EVE would make a nice testbed for that engine before it gets filled with pearly white teeth and high-poly wooden stake models.
The whole: "DEVS SHOULD BE FIXING BUGS NOT ADDING AMBULATION, OMFG" whine is a complete misunderstanding of what's going on, and it helps nobody.
We can either get avatars for free as part of the process, or those same devs can go build something without being part of eve, but it's going to be built anyway, and that Dev time will never be put to Eve bugs. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:45:00 -
[351]
Originally by: R3dSh1ft This is the worst thread I've ever read on here, and that's saying a lot.
more than the raven set up thread? nooo I can't agree with you on this note :P
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:47:00 -
[352]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 18/07/2008 00:48:23
Originally by: Tarminic
I wouldn't call it badly written. It's single threaded, yes, which is one of the primary factors limiting its scalability at the moment. However, when it was written servers with multiple processors weren't common and single-core processors were improving in accordance with Moore's law. CCP lost by gambling on single-core systems, but they didn't have much reason to believe differently at the time.
People should just stop posting when they don't have a clue, rather than continuing on trying to drill themselves out of the hole their in. Dual processor servers have been around since 1998, a full 5 years before EvE entered beta - a lifetime in MMOs.
|
Karlemgne
The Black Fleet Nex Super Vos
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:50:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Aaron i havent read all of the posts in the topic so im just gonna throw this in there,
im comming from a technical/database programmer background and i know a bit about how software interacts with hardware to give top performance. Ive always said eve was way ahead of its time in what ccp are trying to achieve. I think that each system in eve uses a pre-set amount of server resources, when there are large super battles perhaps the servers need to acknowlege this and divert more resources to the systems with battles.
CCP must be able to accomadate its paying subscribers. if we want 500 vs 500 battles then we should get exactly that. If the problem is beyond your control, such as internet issues then fair enuff. but if the problem is due to design flaws or hardware incompatence then the original post is right in saying that game development should be put on hold, and lots of resources pumped into finding out why theres lag in fleet battles.
CCP you must remember one important factor that we are your paying customers, and deserve lots of respect for that. I know lots of us arent satisfied with excuses for lag, Has lag been investigated to the fullest extent? Is there any solution for lag that your working on? I just think u need to engage the original post in a more respectful manner and level with him.
Dont get me wrong im looking forward to the expansions, however from a business point of view are you content with so many of "your customers" being unhappy?
you must understand its frustrating not knowing where somthing is going, or if it is even gonna get investigated properly or fixed.
I guess a further issue is how many subscribers are really engaging in these lagfest fleet battles. The numbers are rarely 500v500 in the first place, and when juxtaposed with the 200,000 subscribers, even then its a small percentage of the player base effected.
So the question becomes, why should CCP halt new content development (or even slow it down since this is impossible) because 12% of the total player base lags during capital fleet blobs in 0.0. Especially considering that the "lag" is very likely unfixable because of hardware issues?
-Karlemgne
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:52:00 -
[354]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/07/2008 00:56:10
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 18/07/2008 00:48:23
Originally by: Tarminic
I wouldn't call it badly written. It's single threaded, yes, which is one of the primary factors limiting its scalability at the moment. However, when it was written servers with multiple processors weren't common and single-core processors were improving in accordance with Moore's law. CCP lost by gambling on single-core systems, but they didn't have much reason to believe differently at the time.
People should just stop posting when they don't have a clue,
yeah, people like you.
Quote: Aug. 24, 1998--Intel Corporation today introduced its fastest processor ever for mainstream Performance PCs, entry-level servers and workstations, and two new basic PC processors that offer Intel(R) quality and dependability at a great value.
The new Pentium(R) II processor 450 MHz provides the highest levels of computing performance for a wide range of productivity and entertainment applications, while the Intel(R) Celeron(TM) processors 333 MHz and 300A MHz enable reliable Basic PC systems on which to run today's common PC programs. These processors complete Intel's 1998 desktop processor line up.
oh lok in 1998 the top of line processor was a single core .3 ghz processor.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 01:46:00 -
[355]
Quote: Aug. 24, 1998--Intel Corporation today introduced its fastest processor ever for mainstream Performance PCs, entry-level servers and workstations, and two new basic PC processors that offer Intel(R) quality and dependability at a great value.
The new Pentium(R) II processor 450 MHz provides the highest levels of computing performance for a wide range of productivity and entertainment applications, while the Intel(R) Celeron(TM) processors 333 MHz and 300A MHz enable reliable Basic PC systems on which to run today's common PC programs. These processors complete Intel's 1998 desktop processor line up.
oh lok in 1998 the top of line processor was a single core .3 ghz processor.
That's a Pentium II... Not the dual processor line, which was the Pentium Pro, and just a short 2 years later they have 4 processor board offered with Xeons - three years before EvE went beta. Got something else while you're behind? Multiprocessor code has been written LONG before x86 class machines even entered your vocabulary.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 02:10:00 -
[356]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/07/2008 02:13:24 Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/07/2008 02:09:52
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 18/07/2008 02:04:20
Quote: Aug. 24, 1998--Intel Corporation today introduced its fastest processor ever for mainstream Performance PCs, entry-level servers and workstations, and two new basic PC processors that offer Intel(R) quality and dependability at a great value.
The new Pentium(R) II processor 450 MHz provides the highest levels of computing performance for a wide range of productivity and entertainment applications, while the Intel(R) Celeron(TM) processors 333 MHz and 300A MHz enable reliable Basic PC systems on which to run today's common PC programs. These processors complete Intel's 1998 desktop processor line up.
oh lok in 1998 the top of line processor was a single core .3 ghz processor.
That's a Pentium II... Not the dual processor line, which was the Pentium Pro, and just a short 2 years later they have 4 processor board offered with Xeons - three years before EvE went beta. Got something else while you're behind? Multiprocessor code has been written LONG before x86 class machines even entered your vocabulary.
Some of the people in this thread have raised a valid point, don't let your fanboi n3rd rage blind you when it's true.
P pro 1998 Produced: November 1, 1995 Manufacturer: Intel Max CPU clock: 150 MHz to 200 MHz FSB speeds: 60 MHz to 66 MHz Min feature size: 0.35 Śm to 0.50 Śm Instruction set: x86 Microarchitecture: P6 Cores: 1 Socket: Socket 8
It was however the 1st duo cache CPU, is that what your getting confused with? duo cpu did not come untill much later. CPU cluster tech for super computers came out in 1998 as well meaning you could finally use 2 CPUs, these however where not duo core but infact two Cpus on the same motherboard, only used in supercompters of the day, this includes the eve cluster.
Only very resently have duo CPU become a reality.
don't post what you know nothing about jezz, that's like my friend who thinks his new mac has an 8 core CPU, NO! it has 2 4 quad cpu you idiot! ARGH.
|
Doc Fury
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 02:33:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Synapse Archae
The whole: "DEVS SHOULD BE FIXING BUGS NOT ADDING AMBULATION, OMFG" whine is a complete misunderstanding of what's going on, and it helps nobody.
No misunderstanding here at all:
Our subscriptions are presently paying for development of a new game most of us won't likely ever play, and worse yet, we will have to pay to beta test this new distract-u-lation crap while bugs and unfinished features in the game we actually DO pay for, remain unresolved.
Do you get it yet? What people are *****ing about is that EVE subscription revenues are not presently going to further EVE development, and are being diverted to this sucky vampire crap that CCP is disguising as an an "EVE expansion", that is actually only huge beta test for said vampire suckyness..
If buying-out WhiteWolf wasn't such a great immediate investment, why the frack should EVE-ONLINE subscribers have to pay for that mistake?
The beginning was the end (of everything) The Ape regards his tail, (he's stuck on it) Repeats until he fails..half a goon and half a god.. a man's not made of steel...
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 02:36:00 -
[358]
Originally by: MotherMoon
all that said yes lots of people have brought up great points in this thread, and hopefully the guys making the code will get mulitple core support soon or god forbid rewrite the code in CC++. which would create 100,000 bugs and pure hell for a few months but might be needed if tech keeps growing.
However I never shot down those posts or ideas just yours, and your sad atemp to think that any game producer would think 8 years ahead and make their game support duo core computers.
On top of all of that those dual processor compters were not able to use both cores to run one program until 2004/2005. They were made to run more than one program each on one core for faster speed, but once CPUS reached higher speeds such as 2004 with the qst line of P4 processors there was no need. thus they started thinking... yeah why not have programs that span two cpus? well that would be dumb two cpus is hard to make any faster due to communication speed and the transfer in which the two cores would talk to each other. But then the pieces got smaller and one day, BAM! they could shove two cores into one and the duo line was born. the industry will slowly adopt multiple core programs but most likely most games wil still be single core while using the newer cpus to allow games to run alone with their own cpu like a console allows for.
I wasn't speaking of dual cores, but dual processor boards. I ran 4 proc box server farms that were multithreading 2000-2001, it's not something new. Dual core and Quad core processors are new, yes, but even kind of "cheats" as you split the resources across the same die.
At any rate Moon, they obviously weren't thinking future wise at all. Even if it were just 2 threads they'd be boatloads ahead, but I guess that's what happens when you let software "engineers" program.
|
|
CCP Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 02:42:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
It will be an entirely new aspect of the game, ripe for developement and expansion.
DEPTH makes for a good game
You get a cookie for getting it.
We won't release Ambulation completely empty of features and things to do, but they may not be be your cup of tea. We will however continue to develop and expand Ambulation once it hits.
Pink Dread has been hijacked
|
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 02:54:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Mothermoon
oh lok in 1998 the top of line processor was a single core .3 ghz processor.
Long before dual core and quad core processors there were systems with dual, quad, or up to 16 processors in them. Multi-processor systems have existed since the 70's. Python is much newer than the concept of multithreading and multiple core systems. I hate to say it but all these problems are things that credit card/ATM systems solved like 30 years ago.
Anyway, my last post on this particular subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |