Multiplayer in KSP 1.8

[OHara]

On 3/5/2019 at 6:07 PM, Tyko said:

how did you all end up in orbit at the same time? how did you race to minmus and all arrive in orbit at the same time? how did you all hit your landing zones at the same time? how did you all go about building your bases simultaneously?

The people using the multiplayer mods might have trouble answering these questions, because they don't need to do all these things 'at the same time' as each other.

Each person can time-warp at will, breaking the real-time link with the others.  In order to rejoin and interact, players whose games are at earlier Kerbal time have to synchronize (time-warp to catch up with the player at the most advanced Kerbal time).  In a race to the Mun Arch, whoever gets there first in gameplay time won't know if he's won until the others finish their attempts.  If another ship synchronizes to you (skipping the Kerbal time that his ship is waiting for you) and appears from thin air (or thinner vacuum) then he beat you.

The need to explicitly synchronize with a time-warp in order to re-establish interaction might seem limiting, but users of the existing mods seem to make good use of the system.  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=multiplayer+kerbal.  In "Kerbal Space Program Multiplayer is a Test of Friendship & Patience" from last week, waiting for his friends' time-warps was not what tested the poster's patience.

Edited April 15, 2019 by OHara
punctuate, use the term 'sync'

[Jatwaa]

11 hours ago, Tyko said:

I wasn't looking for an explanation of how a time warp system works. I was asking for a walkthrough of how it affected your game play in a specific instance. It sounded from your earlier post like you were actually trying to win people over and I'm asking you to use this as an example of how it worked for you

how did you all end up in orbit at the same time? how did you race to minmus and all arrive in orbit at the same time? how did you all hit your landing zones at the same time? how did you all go about building your bases simultaneously?

 

Time warp isn't really something we worry too much about. We fly to orbit and sync back up. Once we are synced, we go about what we were doing except now, we are all synchronized. We then burn to Minmus. When I landed, there were two others already landed nearby, I landed near the first guy, but his craft had technical difficulties, lol. So I re-landed at the other. When the next guy came in, he flew to Minmus orbit, synced, then landed near us. It was smooth enough so that we could watch the crafts coming in from orbit, then landing. No "OH HAI!" pop in. 

We didn't build separate bases, we built a Minmus base, each person had a segment. 

With polar races, we all synced while in the SPH, then spawned to the runway. There is a protective bubble (size is configurable) that allows you to not spawn on top of one another. So multiple craft can launch at the same time, but you have to agree who will launch first and leave that protection, else, you will collide. It happens on occasion. Synchronizing is literally a single button to press so you can sync to who you want, or all to one. 

[FleshJeb]

44 minutes ago, Jatwaa said:

Time warp isn't really something we worry too much about.

The solution to problems in multiplayer that a LOT of people seem to miss is, "Be a little more chill."

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, Jatwaa said:

Time warp isn't really something we worry too much about. We fly to orbit and sync back up. Once we are synced, we go about what we were doing except now, we are all synchronized. We then burn to Minmus. When I landed, there were two others already landed nearby, I landed near the first guy, but his craft had technical difficulties, lol. So I re-landed at the other. When the next guy came in, he flew to Minmus orbit, synced, then landed near us. It was smooth enough so that we could watch the crafts coming in from orbit, then landing. No "OH HAI!" pop in. 

We didn't build separate bases, we built a Minmus base, each person had a segment. 

With polar races, we all synced while in the SPH, then spawned to the runway. There is a protective bubble (size is configurable) that allows you to not spawn on top of one another. So multiple craft can launch at the same time, but you have to agree who will launch first and leave that protection, else, you will collide. It happens on occasion. Synchronizing is literally a single button to press so you can sync to who you want, or all to one. 

Cool. thanks for explaining. I can see how multiplayer could work in limited situations well. In the two cases you provided they were both structured as "races" - which meant A) that there was an imperative for each player to be close in time to the others = less waiting and B) you only had to be in sync at points where you would be geographically close to each other. I'm glad you've found a new way to enjoy the game. 

This still doesn't convince me it should be added to the core game because Kerbal Space Program is about running programs in space - few of which are races and most of which occur over broad time scales that would inhibit this type of syncing. 

Here's my revised opinion (for what it's worth) -  I think this could be a DLC but should not be added to stock - Why? It's going to take a lot of work to develop, deploy and support this project. If there are enough players that want multiplayer then a DLC makes sense. If there aren't enough players to justify a DLC then there aren't enough to justify diverting resources to bloat the core game with things for only a small number of players. I, for one, don't intend to buy it.

 

[Jatwaa]

1 minute ago, Tyko said:

Cool. thanks for explaining. I can see how multiplayer could work in limited situations well. In the two cases you provided they were both structured as "races" - which meant A) that there was an imperative for each player to be close in time to the others = less waiting and B) you only had to be in sync at points where you would be geographically close to each other. I'm glad you've found a new way to enjoy the game. 

This still doesn't convince me it should be added to the core game because Kerbal Space Program is about running programs in space - few of which are races and most of which occur over broad time scales that would inhibit this type of syncing. 

Here's my revised opinion (for what it's worth) -  I think this could be a DLC but should not be added to stock - Why? It's going to take a lot of work to develop, deploy and support this project. If there are enough players that want multiplayer then a DLC makes sense. If there aren't enough players to justify a DLC then there aren't enough to justify diverting resources to bloat the core game with things for only a small number of players. I, for one, don't intend to buy it.

 

No problem! I know many people play the game solo, I would hate to affect those that would want to play solo to have multiplayer options. But as a DLC, it would both fund the multiplayer angle and gauge interest. I think the best way to explain the vision would be the space station we usually launch. 

We start with a core, as people join the server, they can add a component to the station. Eventually, you have a station that is pretty awesome. Then branch from there to refuel depots and such at other locations, stations. Eventually, you can launch an SSTO, refuel at stations and adventure. Someone can rescue your craft ala Elite Dangerous style with fuel pods to get you to the next station. A KSP Fuel Rat type thing. 

With a co-op and some creativity, we could have a peaceful (or not) version of Elite in KSP, that could be pretty awesome. 

[mattinoz]

10 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

The solution to problems in multiplayer that a LOT of people seem to miss is, "Be a little more chill."

At its core KSP is a game of drifting in a black inky void.  Yes just relax a little, not much is happening anyways.

[Anouchka]

KSP in Coop and multi <3 <3

[qzgy]

There's already a thread. 

This has already been asked a lot, with the general answer usually something along the lines of "sounds nice, doesn't work" 

Or at least doesn't work terribly well. 

[Gargamel]

Overlapping thread have been merged. 

[lolosityftw5]

Why not just have a bubble of time around each planet, for example

 

If your within 100km of a planet or 5km of an asteroid ect you get auto synced whereas outside that you desync and are free to timewarp

[Spica]

That would create just as many issues as it would solve, as syncing with some planetary reference date and time that differs from your own would make all the planets suddenly change places, along with anything orbiting them.

If you had any other vessels en route somewhere they would immediately miss their destination, as all the planets and vessels would have to change places as the date changed.

[KerbolExplorer]

How odd that it doesn't say multiplayer for 1.8 now....

[McGraw]

KSP can have multiplayer options,in which players will have their unique ID and can connect with their friends.Friends altogether can build huge bases,space station etc. and people can make their projects under a named program. For example. building a series of launch vehicles under program named SIGMA.(just like real life space programs)

[HebaruSan]

There's already a thread requesting that:

 

[adsii1970]

Thread merged with "Multiplayer in KSP 1.8" thread.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

I would love to have the persistence of the OP to go back and change the version number after every release for over 1 and a half years...

[KSK]

18 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

I would love to have the persistence of the OP to go back and change the version number after every release for over 1 and a half years...

Remind me what that definition of insanity is? Something about repeating things over and over again...

Edited April 25, 2019 by KSK

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Remind me what that definition of insanity is? Something about repeating things over and over again...

Spoiler

(https://xkcd.com/1657/)

 

(Not meant as a critique of @KSK, just had to link the comic before someone else did)

 

[Jatwaa]

Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeeeling

[Duck McFuddle]

This won't happen. It never will. It's impossible. 

I'll use an example from another post to explain.

Let's say I'm flying a jet plane and trying to land it on the runway, and my friend is over in a Kerbol orbit. My friend wants to time warp to an Eve encounter. I'm coming in towards the KSC when my friend warps. Suddenly, my game speeds up, and I explode into a fiery mess after smashing into the VAB. It just doesn't work out. There ware ways around this, but not without making it incredibly boring for one player waiting for their friend to finally land, or without screwing up orbits.

The second problem is reverting - if I crash my ship while my friend just landed on Minmus, then when I revert he will go back to wherever he was when I launched. Now he'll have to keep trying to land until I don't crash. See the issue? 

The third problem is if you try to fix either of these problems, you destroy space-time and end up creating multiple timelines and teleportation and a huge array of bugs. It just doesn't work out. Squad has talked about this for a while and the fact that it hasn't happened makes me think it really isn't coming. People need to stop fantasizing about this - multiplayer in KSP is never going to happen unless Squad does some serious redesigns. I mean, who knows, but for now I think it isn't coming. So please stop making posts about this. Try searching for "multiplayer" in the search bar - over 6,000 results come up. That's about 5,990 too many. It's been discussed, so now all we have to do is wait for either Squad to say it's never going to happen, or for them to say it will.

[Superfluous J]

26 minutes ago, Duck McFuddle said:

This won't happen. It never will. It's impossible.

Your concern is quite literally answered in multiple posts in this thread, including at least one on this very page.

Desyncs and performance problems are MUCH worse issues, as they don't have simple logistical answers.

[Jatwaa]

1 hour ago, Duck McFuddle said:

This won't happen. It never will. It's impossible. 

I'll use an example from another post to explain.

Let's say I'm flying a jet plane and trying to land it on the runway, and my friend is over in a Kerbol orbit. My friend wants to time warp to an Eve encounter. I'm coming in towards the KSC when my friend warps. Suddenly, my game speeds up, and I explode into a fiery mess after smashing into the VAB. It just doesn't work out. There ware ways around this, but not without making it incredibly boring for one player waiting for their friend to finally land, or without screwing up orbits.

The second problem is reverting - if I crash my ship while my friend just landed on Minmus, then when I revert he will go back to wherever he was when I launched. Now he'll have to keep trying to land until I don't crash. See the issue? 

The third problem is if you try to fix either of these problems, you destroy space-time and end up creating multiple timelines and teleportation and a huge array of bugs. It just doesn't work out. Squad has talked about this for a while and the fact that it hasn't happened makes me think it really isn't coming. People need to stop fantasizing about this - multiplayer in KSP is never going to happen unless Squad does some serious redesigns. I mean, who knows, but for now I think it isn't coming. So please stop making posts about this. Try searching for "multiplayer" in the search bar - over 6,000 results come up. That's about 5,990 too many. It's been discussed, so now all we have to do is wait for either Squad to say it's never going to happen, or for them to say it will.

All of this... Literally was already answered. Literally. 

[Arugela]

Can you not have each person render the game the way it is now then simply report their position to the other?

If the visuals around you are simply processed on each time you just need to keep their others position and needed data up to date. Why does it matter that the other person renders by moving the world around them. You can do that locally. Only neutral data needs to be dealt with to then render the other player on your stuff. Their physics can be rendered on their machine and yours on yours...

Why does the game even need to change how it does anything for multiplayer? All you need to do is represent the other player at close range accurately at minimum. This does not require you to have the game world move around the other player at all!! 8\

Could you do a limited or not physic representation that accurately just displays the results of their actions? Then to each their own as far as physics goes. You only need to see the results. Not calculate it on your pc. And calculating the interactive physics should not require you to calculate the world rotation issue either. Just enough info for collisions etc of the base model of the vehicle. In fact you could use that logic to get rid of parts count problems for multiple vehicles. If this is not already implemented.

The oddity then would be two people in multiplayer with different physics mods. One with normal the other with more realistics air dynamics. Although that could be cool. You could live show the differences side by side. So, you could leave that open on purpose.

You could also have an option to live compute the other players physics if you wanted too to some greater extent. Or go without.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Arugela

[Duck McFuddle]

54 minutes ago, Jatwaa said:

All of this... Literally was already answered. Literally. 

Whoops. I didn't read through all the answers (there are seven pages after all, and I'm lazy). 

[Jatwaa]

4 hours ago, Duck McFuddle said:

Whoops. I didn't read through all the answers (there are seven pages after all, and I'm lazy). 

It's all good. It's the main questions that even I had when I first looked at DMP and LMP. How can this EVEN WORK?? But there it was, the modders have taken multiplayer so so very far. At this point, Squad could probably pickup from what they have, or at least talk with them. They have some great ideas on how to make it actually happen with a bit less effort than we all think.