RE: [Freeciv-Dev] Idea for 2.0

["Todd Goodman" <tsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Sjolie
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 8:51 PM
> To: Freeciv Dev
> Subject: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Idea for 2.0
> 
> 
> On 1999-07-15 18:55:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Jules Bean (jmlb2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > 
> > > Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
[SNIP]
> If the client generates the 'foggy' map this issue never comes into
> question...

Why in the world would you want the client to generate a foggy map when
it's the entity we want to keep information from?

> 
> > > The issue is that the client, to be useful, wants to store what it
> > > *last* saw, for squares which it can't now see.  IMO, it would be
> > > strange for the server to try to keep track of what the 
> client last saw
> > > on each square - it would be cleaner that the client 
> remembers this.
> > 
> > I truly do wish it could be that simple.  But as far as I 
> can see, it
> > cannot.  The server must be responsible for saving the 
> entire game state,
> > which includes the 'state of known-ness' of the map from 
> each client's
> > point of view.  For reasons stated above, the client cannot be held
> > responsible for accurately reporting this information at 
> save game time.
> 
> Uhh? I don't see any reasons for that to be infeisable above...

Again, why distribute something that we want to keep from the clients?

The server must know the position of all units when saving the game.
It also must know the explored areas of the world from each civs
viewpoint.  It's then a simple matter to send this information to the
client when loading a saved game.

[SNIP]

> 
> Don't You see that it is an incredible lot easier to do this in the
> client??? Simply only send the client information it really can see!
> The 'foggy' map is *completely* the clients bussines!

How is this any easier in the client?  The 'foggy' map should be
entirely the servers business.  We should be keeping the 'fogged'
information from the client altogether.

[SNIP]
> 
> Again, if the client is to be *anything* but stupid it needs 
> to be able
> to keep data in the server just for safe keeping...
> It does *not* have to mean a lot of traffic...

This is an entirely different issue than 'fog of war'.

> 
> > > > This sort of spells doom for (ai) clients that plan to sent
> > > > huge amounts of data to the server for safekeeping -
> > > 
> > > Agreed, so let's solve it in anuther way... :)
> > 
> > That's an entirely different problem. :-(
> 
> No! It's not!

It certainly is.  You want a generic mechanism to store client
information on the server.  Fog of war isn't client information.

> 
> So, keep the data in the server but the code in the client...
> Give each client a place in the server to store its info and 
> construct a
> general packettype for updating this data... This certainly should be
> able to do without getting to much traffic...

Certainly.

Todd

> 
> /Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)
> 
>