Rejected Limit number of blocks per ship to 500k, including the turrets.

    Joined
    May 7, 2015
    Messages
    65
    Reaction score
    5
    I don't think I would be happy at my work if my boss said "Go optimize the data handling over a network interface for project X, BTW, we are updating features all the time so its a moving target. Good luck!" I think I would give him the crazy eye and try to wait 10 seconds before I point out the tremendous waste of time he inflicted on me and the waste of resources that was about to happen.

    That is a very specific science to optimizing network use for an application. Part of that science is the application can't keep making large changes beyond bug fixes. You would spend a week getting a baseline, planning changes, identifying bottlenecks, and then toss out the work to just start over the next week when they add in a new big feature.

    TL;DR - Optimization comes close to last in a large project like a game. Be much more patient.
    That is a problem, if they do optimization before new features they will be forded to do rework.
    If they do new features with out optimization it will be hard to know if the features works the way it should be.
    That is the case, today the servers cant handle even an small war between 40 players, its possible to optimizate it to allow this kind of game ? If yes, ok, if no, then new features that have battles like in mind that will fail because of performance...
    If they have no awnser, they have the risk to build features that will never work, so its lost work anyway.
     
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages
    405
    Reaction score
    140
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    That is a problem, if they do optimization before new features they will be forded to do rework.
    If they do new features with out optimization it will be hard to know if the features works the way it should be.
    That is the case, today the servers cant handle even an small war between 40 players, its possible to optimizate it to allow this kind of game ? If yes, ok, if no, then new features that have battles like in mind that will fail because of performance...
    If they have no awnser, they have the risk to build features that will never work, so its lost work anyway.
    Just be patient, unlike space engineer, schema have optimization plans.
    Optimization are done between every few feature updates
    The previous optimization have boost double fps in some computers.

    FYI, my server bandwidth can handle 40 vs 40, but my server cpu/ram can't:(
     
    Joined
    May 2, 2015
    Messages
    73
    Reaction score
    22
    Starmade is very memory hungry. That is a huge part of the issue I think. Using that much memory always comes at a cost. Something has to process and move all that memory and that is the processor and its bridge systems.

    I think 40 vs 40 is totally doable on a small ship (less than 100k mass ships) scale currently with a server that has a 1Gbps connection. Running on 100Mbps? don't bother trying that and just go home. About 80% of the current server host that pop up offering Starmade servers don't understand the specs and requirements needed for Starmade so their are a ton of crap servers out there. You almost need 4 GB base RAM and .5 GB Ram for every extra player beyond 8. Add to that a very fast HDD and you see the issues.

    I lament the lack of a manageable and dislocated Database for example. I want to have my DB separate from my server so I can run reports and manage things at the DB side. Maybe even have a redundant server. Sadly this is not the case right now. But for them to change to an SQL database would be interesting and I don't expect a fully manageable and remote database to happen.
     
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages
    405
    Reaction score
    140
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Starmade is very memory hungry. That is a huge part of the issue I think. Using that much memory always comes at a cost. Something has to process and move all that memory and that is the processor and its bridge systems.

    I think 40 vs 40 is totally doable on a small ship (less than 100k mass ships) scale currently with a server that has a 1Gbps connection. Running on 100Mbps? don't bother trying that and just go home. About 80% of the current server host that pop up offering Starmade servers don't understand the specs and requirements needed for Starmade so their are a ton of crap servers out there. You almost need 4 GB base RAM and .5 GB Ram for every extra player beyond 8. Add to that a very fast HDD and you see the issues.

    I lament the lack of a manageable and dislocated Database for example. I want to have my DB separate from my server so I can run reports and manage things at the DB side. Maybe even have a redundant server. Sadly this is not the case right now. But for them to change to an SQL database would be interesting and I don't expect a fully manageable and remote database to happen.
    it doesn't matter if the ship is small or big
    the ship size do not affect the use of bandwidth
     
    Joined
    May 2, 2015
    Messages
    73
    Reaction score
    22
    It does at first, there is a block chunk update that must happen for each player. If you have 40 vs 40, then all 80 must get information on the other 79, so you end up with technically 80*79= 6320 ships being delivered to the clients. Larger ships have a serious effect on that. That can be a tremendous amount of ships. The game delivers the entire state of the ship too, not just the important stuff. Like if I am shooting a ship should I have to worry about the fact it has logic circuits connected to things or a bunch of other states that are irrelevant? I shouldn't need that stuff till I am within that ships build box as an astronaut.

    (I don't know if Starmade takes advantage of multicast for sectors but it could reduce server queue sizes and increase performance by putting the load on the networks routers instead of the server and its immediate connection. Granted cloaking ships would need to exist outside the Multicast channel.)

    Then you add to it the position/speed/orientation updates
    Then the additional updates from damaged blocks
    then the updates from weapons
    and you see where this is going.

    Projectile reduction is a huge part of this, but also managing the pipe for bandwidth with block counts.

    Now a lot of this assumes all 80 players jumping into the same spot at nearly the same time. Given them sitting in the spot ahead of time would reduce the load.
     
    Joined
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages
    24
    Reaction score
    1
    Why ? For performance reasons. I know there is other old suggestions about it, but I think it really need attention now.
    By My experience playing online, I have a felling that its not the current combat mechanic ( damage done by blocks insted hp ), or the number of players, that lags the servers, its the size of the ships.
    If there is 200 players in the same server with small ships, it will be easier to the server to handle it then 2 players with 3m blocks ships each.
    Any ships with more then 3m will lag alone all the cluster, in battle, two of this will crash any server.
    In fact, almost all servers have limits for the number of blocks for ships to 1m, but since its not blocked by the game and its hard to control, there is always someone with a big ship or building it.
    It could be disabled by server configuration for those who want to play lagging servers ( but not recommended ).
    Its easy to do on the game code and would fix a lot of issues.
    Also, it would make easy to make balance between the ship x sizes, since you know the max size of an ship, you can guess the firepower of it.
    And it could encourage artists to build smaller ships, for this, some blocks could have a lesser count, like, 2xdecorations blocks count for 1 on the ship size or even 0.
    I really don't like this idea. I'll building a ship that's almost 3 kilometers and I'd never be able to do that if this were implemented. Raspberry pie to you friend.
     

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,150
    Reaction score
    1,330
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    I'd not be happy with this at all either... 500k blocks is a surprisingly small amount. If memory serves, I have a ship that's something like 350 meters (Not too huge by SM's current standards; to me it's a pretty big ship though) and I'm pretty sure it's way over that limit - and I haven't even fully filled it in yet.
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    What is this? A ship for ants?

    No really though

    I run on 32bit windows with about as crappy hardware as I could ever recommend using in multiplayer, no worries up to 6mil so far, i was even able to run 2.5mil in battle on the dedicated server on this PC. The multiplayer server I play on has quite a few ships with several times that limit just in shield blocks. Why everything runs smoothly is honestly some kind of dark magic on the admins side, mostly lots of flying around doing quality control. The only size limits imposed are on stations, which have been the culprit for lag issues 9 times out of 10.

    I do think its a good idea to have that option in the configuration, but I don't think ships are quite the issue as far as server load goes.
     
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages
    14
    Reaction score
    2
    • Purchased!
    This feature is now in the Dev Build, it will be in the next release. With the feature to limit the weapons computers etc... It will all be configurable with the config files.
     
    Joined
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages
    2,932
    Reaction score
    460
    • Hardware Store
    This feature is now in the Dev Build, it will be in the next release. With the feature to limit the weapons computers etc... It will all be configurable with the config files.
    Correct. The reject tag will remain though, as this suggestion is about a hardcoded and unconfigurable limit.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages
    14
    Reaction score
    2
    • Purchased!
    Correct. The reject tag will remain though, as this suggestion is about a hardcoded and unconfigurable limit.
    Ah... I see. But the new feature will have the ability to make this also happen ;)

    Cheers!
    - Zodiak
     

    StormWing0

    Leads the Storm
    Joined
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages
    2,126
    Reaction score
    316
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    So why isn't there a rejected but sanely implemented tag? :P
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,062
    Reaction score
    1,841
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    So why isn't there a rejected but sanely implemented tag? :p
    Because what OP suggested isn't what was implemented. He was asking for a hardcoded 500k block cap, not a server setting.