Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-16T00:38:06+02:00

you should wake up before posting Poch, dreams are a nice thing but...

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 16 Mar 2013, 00:38

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-15T22:02:23+02:00

It's like, i would love the SC2 pathfinding begin used in FA. But it is owned by some university, so AFAIK if GPG want to puts it in the FA code they would have to renegociate licences and stuff.

For for FA middleware, they already have the right to use it in the game. But i do not know if the licence allow GPG to create an open-source game based on those 3rd party libraries. Maybe, maybe not ^^

Anyway, when FAF will be bigger, maybe we can ask GPG some things, but for now, with the SC/FA licences being sold & THQ going down, it is a little too early maybe.

But until now, no modding community succeeded in this sort of things. There even was a petition going on for TA to be open-sourced before SC1 was released. Without success, of course.

Statistics: Posted by Poch — 15 Mar 2013, 22:02

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T19:24:41+02:00

rootbeer23 wrote:
they can open up everything that they produced themselves.

Well, ask, you never know...

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Mar 2013, 19:24

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T19:18:36+02:00

they can open up everything that they produced themselves.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 14 Mar 2013, 19:18

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T19:14:05+02:00

I've said that many time, but the engine use third party API, and you have to buy the license to use them.
GPG can't release the source code like that even if they want to.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Mar 2013, 19:14

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T19:11:41+02:00

get in contact with the owner. maybe they dont know what open source is.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 14 Mar 2013, 19:11

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T19:00:25+02:00

Call me crazy, but considering how successful SC1/FA was compared to SC2, is it so out of the question that they would make a remake of SC and call it Supreme Commander HD or something like that? For a more optimized version of this game I would be willing to fork over some cash. Maybe we could start a petition?

Statistics: Posted by Badsearcher — 14 Mar 2013, 19:00

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T15:45:08+02:00

We have trouble finding guys able to do simple lua stuff, and you are talking of re-programming the code for multi-threading... You are funny

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Mar 2013, 15:45

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T15:27:02+02:00

find out who owns it and ask them. from what i know the supcom engine is rotting on some archive machine. at least i dont know of it being used for more current titles.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 14 Mar 2013, 15:27

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T15:20:35+02:00

Well, my point was more about getting the code etc. The multi threading itself should not be the problem. I am confident that there is always something you can put in another thread, even if it might not be perfect multi threading it will be better than the current.

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 14 Mar 2013, 15:20

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T14:31:13+02:00

seperate air, land, engy-like and naval on 4 different threads
somebody allready posted a link to the engine, I thought actually...?! But it would be illegal to change something in the engine without permission of the licence owner...

Statistics: Posted by discoverer2k4 — 14 Mar 2013, 14:31

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T13:12:14+02:00

Benoker wrote:
All computers first simulate tanks firing their shots, then all computer simulate tanks taking damage, then all computers calculate which tanks have taken too much damage and explode

you would see a similar problem with just the movement of units which would not be solved by the solution above.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 14 Mar 2013, 13:12

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T12:27:58+02:00

Concurrency is nothing that can be solved in one day. But for example the very real issue you bring up might be sovled with "All computers first simulate tanks firing their shots, then all computer simulate tanks taking damage, then all computers calculate which tanks have taken too much damage and explode" -> meaning breaking down the algorithm in several steps, each of which can be solved concurrently - but it would not be possible to execute more than one (big) step at a time. Of course this solution might have some side effects causing trouble elsewhere...

... and just our friendly argument should prove to SC-Account that the answer to "how difficult would it be ..." is "very".

Statistics: Posted by Benoker — 14 Mar 2013, 12:27

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T12:03:49+02:00

Benoker wrote:
In this model an ASF blop fight can happen in one square, and all the multicore does not help because this one square is only handled by one core...

nothing is perfect

Benoker wrote:
Personally I think it does not matter in which order the collisions between projectiles and units are calculated because total damage is a simple addition of all the single damages (a+b = b+a). Each core could randomly choose which projectiles/units to handle.

computer1 simulates projectile P34324 hitting tank t232 and destroying it first and computer2 simulates tank232 shooting at tank545 and afterwards simulates projectile P34324 hitting t232.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 14 Mar 2013, 12:03

Re: Multicore FA

2013-03-14T08:21:53+02:00

In this model an ASF blop fight can happen in one square, and all the multicore does not help because this one square is only handled by one core...

Personally I think it does not matter in which order the collisions between projectiles and units are calculated because total damage is a simple addition of all the single damages (a+b = b+a). Each core could randomly choose which projectiles/units to handle.

But if it would be so easy GPG would have implemented it There really is no point in trying to modify the application without even having access to the source code.

Statistics: Posted by Benoker — 14 Mar 2013, 08:21