Re: cheating & LOS

["Eric A. Anderson" <eanders+@CMU.EDU>]

Philip Brown <philb@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:
> [ largest amount of changes when lots of monsters ]
> 
> If they are getting updated here and there, let's say 10 pieces of
> information in one packet, with tcp packet overhead, that generates a
> hell of a lot of overhead.
THe easiest way to deal with this is to batch up each of the packets
which you conceptually send to the client.  Instead of sending a
separate tcp packet for each update, you just keep putting data in a
buffer, and when the server finishes processing a turn, it flushes all
of the connections.  It's not hard to do; you just do it in a library
and don't deal with it from then on.

> If you agrees to switch solely to UDP, I don't think I would have a
> problem with this.
I think this would be a mistake.  UDP means you have to repeat all of
the work of transferring sequenced data; with all the chances of
getting it wrong.  Why not just use TCP and take advantage of years of
work?
          -Eric 
*********************************************************
"It seemed like a good idea at the time"
           -The Mad Hatter
"Yes, you're very smart.  Shut up."
           -In "The Princess Bride"
*********************************************************