Remember when "We are dedicated to adding multiplayer" was a thing?

[Brent Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Talavar said:

which would be a complete waste of time, since the majority of players would just get a mod instead.
 

 

2 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 Laughable... anyway. I'm out.. later fellas.

Any modder trying to replicate the parts would, and especially the mission maker, would be breaking many national and international copyright laws. if you are hopping for a mod of a paid expansion, I sincerely hope you will be disappointed. 

[Talavar]

[snip]

30 minutes ago, Brent Kerman said:

 

Any modder trying to replicate the parts would, and especially the mission maker, would be breaking many national and international copyright laws. if you are hopping for a mod of a paid expansion, I sincerely hope you will be disappointed. 

 This is total crap.. people use stock materials/parts/code in mods all the time. You might have something with the mission maker, but nothing else.

[Brent Kerman]

8 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 This is total crap.. people use stock materials/parts/code in mods all the time. You might have something with the mission maker, but nothing else.

They only work if you have the game already bought though, a mod that adds DLC parts even if you don't have the DLC is copyright infringement.

 

But like Jim, I'm outa here before I say something that gets me another warning for 2.2!

[Alshain]

16 minutes ago, Brent Kerman said:

 

Any modder trying to replicate the parts would, and especially the mission maker, would be breaking many national and international copyright laws. if you are hopping for a mod of a paid expansion, I sincerely hope you will be disappointed. 

ROFL, The mods already exist.  Historical parts are already out there and you can play with them right now.  The mission maker will only appeal to a small subsection of the games community, those that like completing challenges.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Alshain

[Spartwo]

I feel like I need to specify what I said.

 

I was an early adopter. I qualify for free DLC. Free DLC means not paying for it!

 

Regardless of that, when one of the links in the OP is to multiplayer being a free update post-1.0. That means nobody should be paying for it.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Spartwo

[Just Jim]

11 minutes ago, Spartwo said:

I was an early adopter. I qualify for free DLC.

Ahhhh, my mistake, I didn't know you qualified for a free one.

[snip]

[TheKosmonaut]

Temporarily locking this thread. Stand by.

Ok, re-opening. 

This is notice that some posts here have been edited for violating community guidelines. Also, please avoid personal attacks or insults against other forum users. 

[Talavar]

Well, that was.... expected.
Anyway, It needs to be added.. or at-least addressed somewhere. There are people waiting... STILL.. Just acknowledging it, or shutting it down completely would at-least be something. As of now, those of us who are waiting aren't sure if we are simply beating a dead horse.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Talavar

[TheKosmonaut]

What I think a lot of people (INCLUDING SQUAD) failed to realize is that Multiplayer is hard. It isn't something that can just be implemented overnight. And as people like Darklight of DMP can attest, even if it does somehow start working, it's a headache and works some of the time. 

[luizopiloto]

In the past I received some warning points because of a parody gif I've made about the lack of multiplayer...

[Just Jim]

34 minutes ago, TheKosmonaut said:

Temporarily locking this thread. Stand by.

Ok, re-opening. 

This is notice that some posts here have been edited for violating community guidelines. Also, please avoid personal attacks or insults against other forum users. 

I apologize for losing my temper. 

[Talavar]

25 minutes ago, TheKosmonaut said:

What I think a lot of people (INCLUDING SQUAD) failed to realize is that Multiplayer is hard. It isn't something that can just be implemented overnight. And as people like Darklight of DMP can attest, even if it does somehow start working, it's a headache and works some of the time. 

 The problem i see mostly in the Multiplayer attempts is that each client is generally partially a server unto itself... Hence the ships cloning/overlapping/exploding.. there has to be one Brain leading the nerve system. Hence one server that outputs what is there, and what is to be removed. All extensions of the nerve system send info, and is changed by the brain, then resent back to the client (usual server/client activity). If this fundamental problem was resolved, I think it could come off without too many problems. this is also why I think squad has the best chance of pulling it off, as it is their code, and I think they would have the best chance of manipulating it in a way that would be most productive.. I don't doubt their talent.. which is precisely why it irritates me that it's not even on the board atm. However, My anger has passed for now..I apologize for exploding on those who received flak from me... . You may all once again rest easy...lol

Edited May 25, 2017 by Talavar

[regex]

20 minutes ago, Talavar said:

Hence one server that outputs what is there, and what is to be removed. All extensions of the nerve system send info, and is changed by the brain, then resent back to the client (usual server/client activity).

To be serious, the fundamental problem is network bandwidth and CPU usage. Remember that every craft in KSP is built using discrete parts that all interact with each other when they are within physics range. All the force calculations that happen with each part during each frame need to be done by that central server and then sent out over the wire to each player for every focused craft. This is not a flight sim where each craft is represented by, say, a single object that can have flags applied to represent damage to certain parts, this is a flight sim where every part has its own trajectory and interacts with all other parts.

This is a non-trivial problem to solve. If it were as easy as you claim it would have been done already.

[Brent Kerman]

46 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 The problem i see mostly in the Multiplayer attempts is that each client is generally partially a server unto itself...

 

14 minutes ago, regex said:

To be serious, the fundamental problem is network bandwidth and CPU usage.

Don't forget the big problem of time warp!

[Spartwo]

Time warp isn't a problem, there are many solutions proposed.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Spartwo said:

Time warp isn't a problem, there are many solutions proposed.

^ this

[Frybert]

Thread locked for maintenance 

EDIT

Ok, think I got everything now. Going to try this again.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Frybert

[razark]

1 hour ago, Spartwo said:

Time warp isn't a problem, there are many solutions proposed.

That's what makes it a problem.  There's too many solutions, and everyone has their particular favorite, and is deathly opposed to any of the others.

Unless a multiplayer implementation includes a number of options, a decent subset of players are not going to be happy with it.

 

(Of course, if they'd just do mine (which is, of course, the best), everyone would see how truly superior it is)

[Spartwo]

Fair point, but I trust this community to get over it because it's finally multiplayer. 

...But I'm beginning to think my trust would be misplaced after the barn.

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, razark said:

That's what makes it a problem.  There's too many solutions, and everyone has their particular favorite, and is deathly opposed to any of the others.

Unless a multiplayer implementation includes a number of options, a decent subset of players are not going to be happy with it.

 

(Of course, if they'd just do mine (which is, of course, the best), everyone would see how truly superior it is)

That wasn't a problem for ISRU, or ComNet. Why would it be a problem for Multiplayer.

[razark]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

That wasn't a problem for ISRU, or ComNet. Why would it be a problem for Multiplayer.

Can you show me the piles of locked threads verging on flamewars going back years where people argue over whether they should exist or how they should be implemented to the point that the forum once had a rule that was nothing less than THOU SHALT NOT DISCUSS [ISRU|ComNet]?  Something about multiplayer seems to rile folks up.

Seriously, this thread has been locked twice already, and it's only 46 posts in...

Edited May 25, 2017 by razark

[Alshain]

7 minutes ago, razark said:

Can you show me the piles of locked threads verging on flamewars going back years where people argue over whether they should exist or how they should be implemented to the point that the forum once had a rule that was nothing less than THOU SHALT NOT DISCUSS [ISRU|ComNet]?  Something about multiplayer seems to rile folks up.

Seriously, this thread has been locked twice already, and it's only 46 posts in...

Yes.  I recall many 'which mods should be stock' threads that went through the same issues.  Many of which included discussions of RemoteTech, Kethane, Karbonite, and so forth that got pretty heated.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Alshain

[Brent Kerman]

The explanation of the problems in each multiplayer time warp suggestion would crash my PC. Here is a brief example(Warp Synced solution): I'm doing low Kerbin orbit missions, my buddy is half way to Jool. He's not happy that he has to wait through 1x time warp for half an hour while I resupply my space station. Example 2 (Warp separately, then sync [DMP]) : I dock (After warping) to station port A on day 56 at 3:02:52. My buddy was not warping and docks to port A on day 56 at 1:37:19, but after me in real life. We sync. The problem should be evident here.

[razark]

26 minutes ago, Brent Kerman said:

The explanation of the problems in each multiplayer time warp suggestion would crash my PC.

There've been plenty of discussions on this.  Can we please not turn this thread into one of them?

 

Edit:
The last one of them is even still on the first page of the subforum, where it's not cluttering up a discussion of when/if Squad will be implementing a feature they stated was planned with debate only tangentially related to the subject.

Edited May 25, 2017 by razark

[Brent Kerman]

5 minutes ago, razark said:

There've been plenty of discussions on this.  Can we please go off topic?

Fixed it for you. The topic is multiplayer.

/s