Clients are given details of the turfs in view, and i think 1 tile outwards. This is generally called a client bubble or network bubble.
If we could potentially raise this buffer as needed in our projects, either per-client, or if that is infeasible, per-world, that would be incredibly awesome.
Mainly for client.pixel_x/y reasons (when we want to do screen skakes), but also because the optimal client bubble would be different per-games and potentially per-client.
Another use would be when admins increase their view range. We might want to lower their buffer because even 1 tile out at 20 view range can be a lot of tiles and extra network traffic when at that range, they won't be moving as much.
ID:1982146
 Nov 14 2015, 6:43 am
|
|||||||
| |||||||
|
Nov 14 2015, 7:01 am
|
|
Rushnut
 |
+69
|
I definitely see the value in this. It'd be nice not to have to compute a best guess.
| |
This would be pretty awesome, and could technically fix the big icon vanishing issue too, couldn't it?
| |
I like this a lot. Although, I do have one concern.
While this could be used as a fix for the big icon vanishing issue, wouldn't that increase network traffic? I'd hate to have to have such an increase in network traffic just so big icons don't vanish. Preferably I'd like to see another work-around for that issue in particular if at all possible. Simply because pixel movement itself creates a more network intensive game, I don't want to have to have a bigger network bubble just so fix the problem with big icons. I'd imagine that's a lot of extra data being sent back and forth for just the use of big icons. Perhaps I'm wrong- I'm not well educated with this kind of thing. I'm just putting my thoughts out there. Maybe I'm being paranoid and the network traffic increase wouldn't be noticeable? | |
bump for 510
| |
Agreed, I like this one.
It may also pave the way for client screen rotating because the programmer can assign a large enough buffer zone that rotating the screen won't leave empty spots which the map can't display because it's out of the client's view. (or at least that's how I understood one of the issues with the idea of rotating the screen) | |
Noot noot is that 511 I hear?
| |