Two words on the concept of "consistency" in multiplayer

[LUCE1]

This issue affects mainly those who prefer the simulated flight in a multiplayer environment, but it can affect even those who do not use multiplayer, better models are in their interests also

In multiplayer there are at least two important aspects:
- The performance in terms of FPS
- Consistency of the multiplayer environment

Unfortunately neither of the two aspects seems to be considered enough by most manufacturers which in most cases are oriented predominantly if not exclusively to the graphics, driven by legitimate commercial considerations.

Good performance cannot be at no cost, models made of more than 200000 polygons with bumps and specs are beautiful to see but cannot be suitable for the MP on the average hardware used by simmers since they have a significant FPS drop with more than 2-3 players.
We should also define the standard for "good performances", imho a "good performance" means to have and mantain a FPS of 30 without flickering, stuttering or FPS oscillation, what we call "stable and smooth 30 FPS".
This "stable and smooth 30 FPS" should be mantained into a MP session with at least 10 players.

Another neglected aspect is that of "coherence" of the environment, in other words means that all players should see and hear the same things. Consistency means that all players should have same meshes, same sceneries and same meteorological conditions.
As far as models is concerned all players should see other players airplane loadout and configuration as it really is, if i have uploaded a MK82 on a particular station is necessary that my partner sees it consistently, if i release the MK82 my partner should not see more it on that station.
Same applies to external tanks and all other animations not handled by default.
FSX limitations prevent to apply above standards to the maximum extent, however several thing can be done in order to improve the situation even if some limitations must be accepted.

Unfortunately above aspect are partially or not at all covered by most of models that are claimed to work flawlessly in multiplayer, instead I think it's time that users begin to demand it.

cheers

[cortomalteseit]

Totally agree! I think that multiplayer environment is still an unexplorated world for most of FSX users, althought the benefits in terms of fun and experiences it offers...

[falcon409]

Yep, and in a perfect world, the points that "Luce1" brings up would all be maintainable. But as we know it isn't a perfect world, peoples expectations of "good performance" range from a "smooth and stable" 15fps. . .to 30 and above based on their individual systems and what they can logically expect from that system. Since customers of payware have come to expect more and more detail with more and more system integration, the idea that we would suddenly go back to lower poly aircraft just so they'll work in MP just isn't very likely. I understand that folks who fly daily in Multiplayer are passionate about that environment and the need to be "consistent" in all aspects of the environment, however I don't think anyone in the multiplayer world should ever expect that developers will go to the extent of making two models (which is what would need to happen). . . .one for multiplayers and then a fully detailed model for everyone else. It would be both cost prohibitive and time intensive. . .two things that most customers would not support in this "I want it now world".

Another sad fact (because I really enjoy Multiplayer) is that the Multiplayer environment is such a very small community compared to the Flight Sim world in general. For us at SOH you have only to look at our Multiplayer "Flight Center" participation to understand that given the overall numbers of total members at SOH, the multiplayer world is miniscule. The only time you would ever see more than 3 or 4 folks on at any given time would be once a year during the Round the World Race. While many folks show an inclination to want to have a multiplayer server available. . .very few actually use it as it was designed, which is for "mass participation". 95% of the time, when I am on the multiplayer server, I'm the only one on, lol. . .kinda defeats the purpose of flying multiplayer. Now wherever Luce flies, there might be a large community and that's great, but that "en-mass" participation is not the norm and I doubt it will ever be to the point that commercial developers cater to the multiplayer needs in the way that Luce1 describes. . .IMHO.

[LUCE1]

Yep, and in a perfect world, the points that "Luce1" brings up would all be maintainable. But as we know it isn't a perfect world, peoples expectations of "good performance" range from a "smooth and stable" 15fps. . .to 30 and above based on their individual systems and what they can logically expect from that system. Since customers of payware have come to expect more and more detail with more and more system integration, the idea that we would suddenly go back to lower poly aircraft just so they'll work in MP just isn't very likely. I understand that folks who fly daily in Multiplayer are passionate about that environment and the need to be "consistent" in all aspects of the environment, however I don't think anyone in the multiplayer world should ever expect that developers will go to the extent of making two models (which is what would need to happen). . . .one for multiplayers and then a fully detailed model for everyone else. It would be both cost prohibitive and time intensive. . .two things that most customers would not support in this "I want it now world".

Another sad fact (because I really enjoy Multiplayer) is that the Multiplayer environment is such a very small community compared to the Flight Sim world in general. For us at SOH you have only to look at our Multiplayer "Flight Center" participation to understand that given the overall numbers of total members at SOH, the multiplayer world is miniscule. The only time you would ever see more than 3 or 4 folks on at any given time would be once a year during the Round the World Race. While many folks show an inclination to want to have a multiplayer server available. . .very few actually use it as it was designed, which is for "mass participation". 95% of the time, when I am on the multiplayer server, I'm the only one on, lol. . .kinda defeats the purpose of flying multiplayer. Now wherever Luce flies, there might be a large community and that's great, but that "en-mass" participation is not the norm and I doubt it will ever be to the point that commercial developers cater to the multiplayer needs in the way that Luce1 describes. . .IMHO.
Completely agreed with falcon here, unfortunately is like a dog chasing its tail, worst models for multiplayer means lesser simmers are tempted to try it and lesser publishers will be encouraged to build models designed for the multiplayer.
But something can be done if asked by simmers community without giving up the super-bright frame-killers models with a huge number of polygons.
It is possible make models optimized for MP still having a really good look and shining texture, so the user can choice what use, the heavy and shining to make solo flight taking pictures or still good looking MP models to play with their mates.
May be that if publishers gives a constraints , ie: "do not exceed 100000 polys still making a beautiful model" (that is a feasible thing) the modeler applies and study how can be done, there are many techniques to optimize the final result in 3D studio, modelers are lazy and tend to use lots of polygons instead of trying to optimize. ;)
Furthermore, if the MP model compensates the lower graphical quality with ​​well done systems, weapon included, realistic dynamics, no FPS drop, high MP consistency, rich and complete documentation and a good support i think that will be accepted and will cause more simmers to try the MP.
That's the way we at SSW have started and hope to continue.
One thing is certain to me: the simulated flight in MP is vastly more entertaining than SOLO flight, after several years of flight simulation in MP, often in huge sessions, i feel SOLO flight one thing really boring and devoid of any charm.
In fact i fly SOLO only for short periods when i have to do tests on systems that have just implemented, otherwise i avoid it.
cheers
/Mario

[roger-wilco-66]

[...]

We should also define the standard for "good performances", imho a "good performance" means to have and mantain a FPS of 30 without flickering, stuttering or FPS oscillation, what we call "stable and smooth 30 FPS".
This "stable and smooth 30 FPS" should be mantained into a MP session with at least 10 players.
[...]



Interesting thoughts.
I'm with you on all the aspects you've mentioned, but above is impossible except for the most unlikely case that all users work on exactly the same type of fast hardware in the future. Or you set the standard to a lowly system performance to ensure that these 30fps can be achieved, which will hamper all innovative new developments.


Cheers,
Mark

[falcon409]

The reasons for people not being attracted to Multiplayer flying are more than can be counted on both hands and something for another thread. It remains though that in almost every case I've been personally privy to, the famous line from the movie "Field of Dreams" does not hold true. . . ."If you build it, they will come". . . .no actually they won't and poor fps is only a very small part of why.

[LUCE1]

The reasons for people not being attracted to Multiplayer flying are more than can be counted on both hands and something for another thread. It remains though that in almost every case I've been personally privy to, the famous line from the movie "Field of Dreams" does not hold true. . . ."If you build it, they will come". . . .no actually they won't and poor fps is only a very small part of why.
Unfortunately you are right, mine was an hope rather than a theory.
/Mario

[TeaSea]

I have regularly flown on the SOH server and have only seen one other person on it, besides the regular around the world race.

I venture two thoughts:

1) some people are a bit intimidated by it.

2) FSX and FS9 are generally not "team" type activities.

When I started Flight Sim, it was with CFS2 and 3, where I went online all the time. It was cool to dogfight with others and get my a** shot up.

Starting with FS9 (and in conjunction with my getting a pilot's license) I spent more time focused on the individual aspects of navigating form point a to point be, as well as my all time favorite activity, making instrument approaches. I just think these sims are "different" in terms of the experience.

Also, I frankly work a 50 - 60 hour week and don't have a whole lot of time to devote to online, but that being said I always check online when I get to go SIM. I'm currently making my way down from Alaska to the West Coast.....

[falcon409]

I have regularly flown on the SOH server and have only seen one other person on it, besides the regular around the world race.

I venture two thoughts:
1) some people are a bit intimidated by it.
2) FSX and FS9 are generally not "team" type activities.

When I started Flight Sim, it was with CFS2 and 3, where I went online all the time. It was cool to dogfight with others and get my a** shot up.

Starting with FS9 (and in conjunction with my getting a pilot's license) I spent more time focused on the individual aspects of navigating form point a to point be, as well as my all time favorite activity, making instrument approaches. I just think these sims are "different" in terms of the experience.

Also, I frankly work a 50 - 60 hour week and don't have a whole lot of time to devote to online, but that being said I always check online when I get to go SIM. I'm currently making my way down from Alaska to the West Coast.....
All good points TeaSea and as I mentioned earlier, I know LUCE1 is looking particularly at the fps problem as a contributing factor for why more people don't participate as much as he feels they could with the changes implemented to future aircraft models. I know that for those who do a lot of formation type flying, fps is crucial and FSHost scores poorly in that area. However those same folks rarely use FSHost but opt for the more stable servers that are available.

I think your opening points: Many folks are intimidated by the idea of multiplayer and both FS9 and FSX flying on the same server together are two big reasons. . .and for those who haven't tried MP. . .here's why those two are prime contributors:
Intimidation Factors:
Poor English or no English spoken
overwhelmed by the initial setup of getting logged onto the server
No mic available (more to this one than just that one item)
Perceived Poor piloting skills (basic technique along with navigational skills)

Combined FSX/FS9 on the same server:
Biggest thing here is that quite often airport locations are quite different
ICAO codes aren't always the same for the same airport
varying scenery setups/mesh cause problems (some pilots appear underground or hundreds of feet in the air after parking.)
Animation differences (I have run into several pilots who insist that they want everyone to be able to see the animations of the other aircraft, otherwise it isn't "real" enough for them). . . .ooook

Beyond those mentioned, there is the "Worldwide Phenomenon" trying to setup flights within a group when you have international participation. Some people get frustrated with their inability to be available when 90% of the group is able to. Also, as TeaSea has mentioned. . .life can rear it's ugly head many times and put a damper on a much anticipated group flight at the last minute and sometimes that's enough to cause folks to say. . . .why bother.


So, while I said the myriad of reasons for low MP participation is a subject for another thread. . .I just listed the ones I'm familiar with anyway. . . .sorry LUCE1.

[LUCE1]

All good points TeaSea and as I mentioned earlier, I know LUCE1 is looking particularly at the fps problem as a contributing factor for why more people don't participate as much as he feels they could with the changes implemented to future aircraft models. I know that for those who do a lot of formation type flying, fps is crucial and FSHost scores poorly in that area. However those same folks rarely use FSHost but opt for the more stable servers that are available.

I think your opening points: Many folks are intimidated by the idea of multiplayer and both FS9 and FSX flying on the same server together are two big reasons. . .and for those who haven't tried MP. . .here's why those two are prime contributors:
Intimidation Factors:
Poor English or no English spoken
overwhelmed by the initial setup of getting logged onto the server
No mic available (more to this one than just that one item)
Perceived Poor piloting skills (basic technique along with navigational skills)

Combined FSX/FS9 on the same server:
Biggest thing here is that quite often airport locations are quite different
ICAO codes aren't always the same for the same airport
varying scenery setups/mesh cause problems (some pilots appear underground or hundreds of feet in the air after parking.)
Animation differences (I have run into several pilots who insist that they want everyone to be able to see the animations of the other aircraft, otherwise it isn't "real" enough for them). . . .ooook

Beyond those mentioned, there is the "Worldwide Phenomenon" trying to setup flights within a group when you have international participation. Some people get frustrated with their inability to be available when 90% of the group is able to. Also, as TeaSea has mentioned. . .life can rear it's ugly head many times and put a damper on a much anticipated group flight at the last minute and sometimes that's enough to cause folks to say. . . .why bother.


So, while I said the myriad of reasons for low MP participation is a subject for another thread. . .I just listed the ones I'm familiar with anyway. . . .sorry LUCE1.

In truth I have emphasized the consistency of the environment rather than the FPS that are only a partial aspect of the matter.
However i guess that to sim-fly in MP does not require great knowledge or resource: two friends one of which hosts a session are enough; despite its flaws FSX embedded multiplayer is still the best available. At least this is our experience, after having tasted it generally no longer you want to give it up.

[skyblazer3]

Thanks for posting this Luce.

I'm sure I've said it before -- I fly online in multiplayer, and usually in formation. FPS and good systems complexity are always a balancing act. I tend to turn down my scenery and textures so that I can achieve the 30FPS needed to fly smooth multiplayer.

Aside from testing things, I can't stand single player -- it is just too devoid of reality. If I am flying as a single ship, I will do that on Boston Virtual ATC's server, which provides excellent ATC and pilot interactions for New England (as well as other parts of the US and Canada from time to time). http://www.bostonvirtualatc.com That is probably the best place to fly single-ship in FSX -- they handle a lot of tube liners, GA, and military flights with great controllers and pilots. No one is is screwing around in there. I'll even lead a few formation flights with ex-military guys, and those just interested in military/ warbird aviation. The great thing about BVA is the people, lots of real world pilots and controllers from all backgrounds.

If I want to do close formation work and aerobatics, of course, I host my own server with a group of close friends that I've been flying with for years -- but good aircraft and good scenery are always a consideration.

It is terribly disappointing when I buy a payware aircraft, and then test it out in mulitplayer and it does not function (either because of FPS problems or because systems don't show properly in multiplayer). It becomes a great waste of money -- because I never fly the model again. It's been fun beta-testing with a few payware companies because I can throw my .02 in before the product is released, and once developers know about multiplayer issues, they are pretty good about fixing them.

TO make matters worse, I use FS Recorder to record all of my flights and watch them afterwards (especially formation flights) and this is another area where many payware aircraft fall short -- they don't think about making key animations visible in FS Recorder. Some anti-piracy software is also not compatible with FS Recorder (The ALS SU-27) for example -- that was very disappointing. In Fact, anti-piracy software that does not display the model clearly unless you are in the same aircraft is probably the worst thing we come across flying in multiplayer, because it does not allow for dis-similar formation.

Flying the friendly skies of multiplayer,

Chris

[LUCE1]

Thanks for posting this Luce.

I'm sure I've said it before -- I fly online in multiplayer, and usually in formation. FPS and good systems complexity are always a balancing act. I tend to turn down my scenery and textures so that I can achieve the 30FPS needed to fly smooth multiplayer.

Aside from testing things, I can't stand single player -- it is just too devoid of reality. If I am flying as a single ship, I will do that on Boston Virtual ATC's server, which provides excellent ATC and pilot interactions for New England (as well as other parts of the US and Canada from time to time). http://www.bostonvirtualatc.com That is probably the best place to fly single-ship in FSX -- they handle a lot of tube liners, GA, and military flights with great controllers and pilots. No one is is screwing around in there. I'll even lead a few formation flights with ex-military guys, and those just interested in military/ warbird aviation. The great thing about BVA is the people, lots of real world pilots and controllers from all backgrounds.

If I want to do close formation work and aerobatics, of course, I host my own server with a group of close friends that I've been flying with for years -- but good aircraft and good scenery are always a consideration.

It is terribly disappointing when I buy a payware aircraft, and then test it out in mulitplayer and it does not function (either because of FPS problems or because systems don't show properly in multiplayer). It becomes a great waste of money -- because I never fly the model again. It's been fun beta-testing with a few payware companies because I can throw my .02 in before the product is released, and once developers know about multiplayer issues, they are pretty good about fixing them.

TO make matters worse, I use FS Recorder to record all of my flights and watch them afterwards (especially formation flights) and this is another area where many payware aircraft fall short -- they don't think about making key animations visible in FS Recorder. Some anti-piracy software is also not compatible with FS Recorder (The ALS SU-27) for example -- that was very disappointing. In Fact, anti-piracy software that does not display the model clearly unless you are in the same aircraft is probably the worst thing we come across flying in multiplayer, because it does not allow for dis-similar formation.

Flying the friendly skies of multiplayer,

Chris
Hi Chris,
i can easily quote what you have written here.
AS far PFS are concerned, providing you have an enough powerfull HW ( a good OC quadcore is enough) is easy achieve 30 FPS steady, may be you know already, but Bojote site (http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html) can really change your FSX face.
After having run on Bojote tweaks you will achieve a 100% increasing in performances.
Sending me your 'bojoted' FSX.cfg in PM can help furthermore.
cheers
/Mario

[falcon409]

. . . . . . .At least this is our experience, after having tasted it generally no longer you want to give it up.
Yep, and for very small groups of "like-minded" individuals like yourself and the folks that Chris flies with that is quite the norm. . .once you can get your people interested and show the amount of fun and training that can be accomplished by flying together, they are usually hooked. However, as I've tried to show also. . .there are a ton of folks who never even get to that point because of the items I've mentioned in my posts. When you can't even get people to "try" multiplayer, the things you're talking about are inconsequential and they're not interested in trying both because of the points I mentioned and any number of other perceptions they have due to things they've heard from others.

Your views of multiplayer are based on all the things that you have correctly recognized as hindrances to a solid and realistic flight experience while in multiplayer and other factors that you've recognized over time. Those things, while very important to you, mean nothing to the person who is either hesitant to try MP because he/she speaks poor english or adamant about not even trying it because they tried it 5 or 6 years ago and had a hard time getting the mic to work or getting logged into a server to even start flying. Getting people beyond step 1 and through the door is the biggest challenge to better participation which is what I'd like to see here with the SOH Flight Server and for groups like yours and Chris's. Once they're online, flying, chatting with fellow pilots while sitting in the cockpit waiting to take off, flying in loose formation (and I use the word "loose" very loosely, lol) and navigating to a final destination, most are definitely hooked and looking forward to the next flights and to joining other flight groups like yours and Chris's. After that, then all the requirements you've laid out that will make the experience even more enjoyable and realistic can come into focus and hopefully be embraced by current and future developers.:salute:

[LUCE1]

Yep, and for very small groups of "like-minded" individuals like yourself and the folks that Chris flies with that is quite the norm. . .once you can get your people interested and show the amount of fun and training that can be accomplished by flying together, they are usually hooked. However, as I've tried to show also. . .there are a ton of folks who never even get to that point because of the items I've mentioned in my posts. When you can't even get people to "try" multiplayer, the things you're talking about are inconsequential and they're not interested in trying both because of the points I mentioned and any number of other perceptions they have due to things they've heard from others.

Your views of multiplayer are based on all the things that you have correctly recognized as hindrances to a solid and realistic flight experience while in multiplayer and other factors that you've recognized over time. Those things, while very important to you, mean nothing to the person who is either hesitant to try MP because he/she speaks poor english or adamant about not even trying it because they tried it 5 or 6 years ago and had a hard time getting the mic to work or getting logged into a server to even start flying. Getting people beyond step 1 and through the door is the biggest challenge to better participation which is what I'd like to see here with the SOH Flight Server and for groups like yours and Chris's. Once they're online, flying, chatting with fellow pilots while sitting in the cockpit waiting to take off, flying in loose formation (and I use the word "loose" very loosely, lol) and navigating to a final destination, most are definitely hooked and looking forward to the next flights and to joining other flight groups like yours and Chris's. After that, then all the requirements you've laid out that will make the experience even more enjoyable and realistic can come into focus and hopefully be embraced by current and future developers.:salute:
Everything you write is fair and flawless, but in my view should not be an excuse for developers, they should also develop good models for the MP, because everyone, including them, we know that a good model for the MP is a better model for the SP.
I believe that many developers simply renounce to develop good models for the MP because they are not commercially attractive, without considering that the research and development efforts required by MP models would induce improvments even on SP models.
And this is a contradiction because almost all the developers claim that it is not possible to turn the model development into a job which may generate an economic return, if it is a "labor of love" then it's worth do it in the best way possible.
/Mario

[falcon409]

Everything you write is fair and flawless, but in my view should not be an excuse for developers, they should also develop good models for the MP, because everyone, including them, we know that a good model for the MP is a better model for the SP.
I believe that many developers simply renounce to develop good models for the MP because they are not commercially attractive, without considering that the research and development efforts required by MP models would induce improvments even on SP models.
And this is a contradiction because almost all the developers claim that it is not possible to turn the model development into a job which may generate an economic return, if it is a "labor of love" then it's worth do it in the best way possible.
/Mario
My original statement about the need for a separate thread on general multiplayer problems and lack of participation was correct. You and I are on different wavelengths. Nothing wrong with that, just that my views don't belong on your thread and the general problems related to why folks don't fly on multiplayer have been beat to pulp with little or no change in the general way many folks see multiplayer. I hope your views take root with the developers and you see some changes in the future. :salute:

[LUCE1]

My original statement about the need for a separate thread on general multiplayer problems and lack of participation was correct. You and I are on different wavelengths. Nothing wrong with that, just that my views don't belong on your thread and the general problems related to why folks don't fly on multiplayer have been beat to pulp with little or no change in the general way many folks see multiplayer. I hope your views take root with the developers and you see some changes in the future. :salute:
we hope so too, at SSW we are going along this track, our models are designed having in mind MP without losing sight of the quality of graphical models, we have verified that the efforts of research and development for the MP are poured in a positive manner even in the SP.
Thanks for the fruitful discussion.
cheers
/Mario