Technical solution to eliminate desync in single-player sessions

"

There were really dangerous times when one of us having used /oos prematurely put the life of others in danger because he was unable to resync.

Probably one of the best sentence in the whole thread.

"

You have yet to answer how the client will handle the new work load that you have assigned it. If the client is now simulating the game, what kind of hardware is required and how does that affect the already decried performance that many experience with this game?

I have answered this around 6 times now. The calculations required for chance to hit, critical strike, armor, damage, etc are extremely inexpensive. The client performing these calculations will have zero impact on it's performance.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Sarcasm detected.
Analyze post content: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
None detected.
Request thread lock.

I don't see how locking this thread would achieve anything desirable. Even if qwave is completely wrong it is an important issue to talk about and try to solve. I suppose you want to lock all threads relating to desync so we can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh, I almost forgot.

Request thread to be open.

"

qwave wrote:

I have answered this around 6 times now. The calculations required for chance to hit, critical strike, armor, damage, etc are extremely inexpensive. The client performing these calculations will have zero impact on it's performance.

Please refrain from making absurd absolutes. Zero is an absolute.
I would also assume the workload would be minimal, but without knowing the inner workings of the game it is just that; an assumption.
Combat rolls to me seem trivial examples in comparison to line of site calculations though.

Zero impact on performance means it will not reduce your framerate. Obviously it will cost microseconds, but these are not tangible in a game like this. Line of sight calculations are even cheaper because they can be done by the GPU. (although that is highly unlikely given the simplicity of the algorithm)

The client already performs line of sight calculations, so that's not anything new.

"

qwave wrote:

"

You have yet to answer how the client will handle the new work load that you have assigned it. If the client is now simulating the game, what kind of hardware is required and how does that affect the already decried performance that many experience with this game?

I have answered this around 6 times now. The calculations required for chance to hit, critical strike, armor, damage, etc are extremely inexpensive. The client performing these calculations will have zero impact on it's performance.

What are you basing this on?

"

Citronvand wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

Sarcasm detected.
Analyze post content: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
None detected.
Request thread lock.

I don't see how locking this thread would achieve anything desirable. Even if qwave is completely wrong it is an important issue to talk about and try to solve. I suppose you want to lock all threads relating to desync so we can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh, I almost forgot.

Request thread to be open.

Desynch exists. I am not denying it. I have adapted my play to account for it. I now only experience it roughly once every 100 hours of play time. Unfortunately the vast majority of hack and slash gamers are not intelligent enough to follow suit.
As for this thread, its laced with misleading and contradictory solutions and information. It has boiled down into insults and sarcasm from the OP. In my eyes, grounds for thread locking.

I'm basing it on how fast processors/GPUs can perform algebra.

Also, if sarcasm was grounds for thread locking, there would not be a single non-locked thread in General Discussion. ;-)

"

SkyCore wrote:

Desynch exists. I am not denying it. I have adapted my play to account for it. I now only experience it roughly once every 100 hours of play time. Unfortunately the vast majority of hack and slash gamers are not intelligent enough to follow suit.
As for this thread, its laced with misleading and contradictory solutions and information. It has boiled down into insults and sarcasm from the OP. In my eyes, grounds for thread locking.

Yeah but are you contributing to the thread by constantly harassing the OP and posting off-topic requests to lock the thread? Do you think this is promoting a 'posiitive image' of GD by doing this? Not really. If you want the thread locked email GGG support. It seems hypocritical you would ask him to discuss this privately with GGG and to lock this thread while at the same time you do NOT discuss trying to have this thread locked privately with GGG. I could really go on and on, but I hope you can see where I come from.

I like where this has gone OP. Great read still thus far. I hope it inspires progress. :)

"

qwave wrote:

I'm basing it on how fast processors/GPUs can perform algebra.

So, you have no idea what algorithms are being used, what information is needed, how complex the actual calculation is or how many calculations need to be performed.

Merely on the fact that a computer can do algebra quickly.

(also, news for you, FP math is not what would be considered a fast operation for computers, it is one of the slowest things to do)