Jump to content
NO_SQDeriku777

The reliability of WOL is affecting multi-player for U.S. Players

Recommended Posts

Tough luck is all I can say. This sim's player base is far too small and that's what happens when you don't have that critical mass; people don't spread out, they come to where everyone else is.

 

Why is this so hard for people to understand I don't know. You need a central server for everyone to come and fight when you're talking such small player numbers.

 

WOL, by and large, is BOS. BOS depends on WOL; I don't like it either but that is the simple fact. Something needs to be done to keep this server's reliability because when it crashes, multiplayer numbers go through the floor and that affects the experience for everyone. People can't be bothered and log off.

 

It's an unfortunate business but that's what happens when there isn't that critical mass of players. This is a niche sim after all.

 

I agree. Hence why I suggested a Wings of Liberty Americas (or North America). It has more chances to populate and get momentum, especially when WOL crashes. I agree that WOL needs more reliability, but it is not a good option for the Americas anyway due to its ping. 

 

I would rather WoL go away than be improved 

 

It won't go away and I personally don't want it to go away. People need to work to get an East Coast server populated, that's all. I think it will be easier to create a WOL North America, but it people want to seed Wargrounds I'll help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't go away and I personally don't want it to go away. People need to work to get an East Coast server populated, that's all. I think it will be easier to create a WOL North America, but it people want to seed Wargrounds I'll help.

 

Having played on the Wargrounds Rise of Flight servers myself for some time now, I would rather everyone move to that server for a US based server than have another WoL, it would be far better ran and moderated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they associate WoL as being the only option. This is a perception that needs to change and you are not helping matters by continuing on your "WoL is BoX" crap.

 

Yes this 'crap' needs to change; well done DeadMeat, you still dont understand.

 

You obviously haven't played any other MP titles have you? This sim is nothing in terms of MP numbers. When you have such few players online, they all flock to a common fighting ground. WOL is that common fighting ground- and I don't like that fact anymore than you do. I really don't.

 

WOL is BOX. Like I said, it's an unfortunate business.

Edited by temujin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it needs to change; well done DeadMeat, you still dont understand. You obviously haven't played any other MP titles have you? This sim is nothing in terms of MP numbers. When you have such few players online, they all flock to a common fighting ground. WOL is that common fighting ground- and I don't like that fact anymore than you do. I really don't.

 

WOL is BOX

 

Actually ive been playing multiplayer games for 25 years so far (started on Doom via a null modem cable and went from there), and you seem to underestimate the numbers of players available. There are more than it seems and a lot of that is because they don't want to play on WoL (probably for the same reasons I won't play there anymore) but they also like me don't want to put the time into something like TAW.

The trick is we need to interest these players in coming back to multiplayer, and also show them that there are alternatives. So rather than lament about reliability issue of Wings of Potato, how about we make a lot of noise about the other options instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate what's your suggestion? I have coin I'm willing to invest, as do others I'm sure.

 

Fact is, people associate BOS with WOL. Unfortunately that's that's a very unreliable thing, but what can we do?

 

These Russians don't care when it's outside of their hours, they just don't care.

Edited by temujin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choose a server that suits you (be it your own, or something like wargrounds or mine or whatever) and populate it.

Get all your friends and people you know to play on it, people will see it being populated and will join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choose a server that suits you (be it your own, or something like wargrounds or mine or whatever) and populate it.

Get all your friends and people you know to play on it, people will see it being populated and will join.

This is a classic prisoners dilemma. Busy people with limited flying time are not going to sacrifice their leisure time flying on a dull low population server when they could just as easily fire up another populated multi-player game. Only the hardest of Core flight sim enthusiasts are going to willing to make that sacrifice. This may be the only game in town for WW2 flight sims but it is not the only multi-player game. If this game wants to grow its player base it really needs to take that into to account.

 

The technical achievements of the game are amazing. More attention needs to be paid to what can make this a successful multi-player GAME. Hardcore sim enthusiasts that can quote manifold pressure settings from memory are not numerous enough to keep this game financially viable. I am not saying anything should be dumbed down but that more attention needs to be paid to multi-player game design features. Only robust COOP and the implementation of the Air Marshall feature has a chance of salvaging this situation. You have give to give people a compelling reason to play on a low pop server and grow it to salvage this WOL dominance situation. Focused goals and objectives would support that. Tooling around on a huge map on a low pop server looking for the other 5 to 8 enemy pilots is going to tax the patience of any player, no matter their dedication. Maps need to be designed with airfield unlocks that scale the active combat area to the number of players and side balance ratio.

Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that WOL is dominating the MP arena but i dont think fixing WOL is the solution.

 

Instead of whining, we should just set up a US equivalent with stats and all. Who is going to create missions? Who is going to pay for server costs?

Who is going to maintain and moderate the server?

 

Those are the real questions.

I'll pay for and host the server, but I don't have time to make missions.

 

I had a pet project going to make Warclouds for BOX, but I have an infant daughter and thus just don't have time.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pay for and host the server, but I don't have time to make missions.

 

I had a pet project going to make Warclouds for BOX, but I have an infant daughter and thus just don't have time.

 

Warclouds? You have my attention. =) (wonder what ever became of Sparx, the owner of WC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem is that there is no hyper lobby style interface to coordinate and corral players into different servers. When WOL goes down a lot of players just call it a night or migrate to other servers, but since there is no method for everyone to communicate from the server list screen there is no way to know which or direct players to these servers. Fortunately I believe Jason was talking about adding something like this to IL2 BOX in the future.

 

 P.S. I have been subbed to Magz for awhile now so I would love to check out the Unprofessionals server, is there a common night when you guy's get together to fly?

Edited by JadeBandit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end its Not an MMO and not marketed as one.
There is no obligation from the Devs/Pubs to provide a MP server (but they do).

Not so much an issue anymore now wings Auto resets itself now when it crashes (after a few mins)
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much an issue anymore now wings Auto resets itself now when it crashes (after a few mins)

 

This is good news. The other day it crashed and I went to Berloga. When I left Berloga, WOL was back online again (but I did not know how).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im willing to contribute some coin for a US based server. I could donate up to 20 a month towards that. It would be nice to have a low ping US based server with a lot of fun missions, maps, etc....I do love coconuts server as well as WOL. WOL has its moments but I like to get online and fly. Sometimes I go looking for fights sometimes I just fly around and watch the action. I enjoy the sim. 

 

Anywho, im in if anyone wants to help out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start playing on Wargrounds if you live in NA. Log in even if the numbers are low. More people will join, its like growing a garden, .. of .. airplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im willing to contribute some coin for a US based server. I could donate up to 20 a month towards that. It would be nice to have a low ping US based server with a lot of fun missions, maps, etc....I do love coconuts server as well as WOL. WOL has its moments but I like to get online and fly. Sometimes I go looking for fights sometimes I just fly around and watch the action. I enjoy the sim. 

 

Anywho, im in if anyone wants to help out. 

 

I'm up for it. We just need someone in the US willing to open a server. I suggested a kickstarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get with some of my friends that fly and see if they want to contribute. It wouldnt cost a whole lot. Probably can get by with a core i5, 16gb ram, a 128 SSD, and Linux OS. MY internet connection is 100 Mbps down so bandwidth will not be much of an issue. I hear Dserver consumes so little anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dserver runs on Windows. You might get it working with wine on Linux, it once worked, then stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the clients are limited to 10 though unless you are running windows server, is that correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the clients are limited to 10 though unless you are running windows server, is that correct? 

 

From what people say, the dserver uses just one core (and an extra core for Windows), so those unlocked i3 are a much better option than a locked i5. You can easily overclock an i3 to 4.7Ghz or more. IIRC, people say that 4GB of RAM is enough; It does not demand much hardware at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what people say, the dserver uses just one core (and an extra core for Windows), so those unlocked i3 are a much better option than a locked i5. You can easily overclock an i3 to 4.7Ghz or more. IIRC, people say that 4GB of RAM is enough; It does not demand much hardware at all.

wow ty for that info! Good to know. Nyap and I want to start something as well here so that helps a lot. Edited by Beazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow ty for that info! Good to know. Mayo and I want to start something as well here so that helps a lot.

 

Just confirm the whole specs first, but the one core usage and the overclocked i3 option is a fact from all people say (it also surprised me :biggrin:). 

 

If you open a thread to say that you are opening a US server (to give the Americas an option, Europe and Oceania as well), ask for people to seed, to give feedback if you are in doubt of things, I imagine people will seed the server right off the bat. I for once would love to see lower pings and less stutter in missions. I've been flying ROF lately, but I share my time with BOX as well.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the connection limit on win10, it’s 20. Does not stop more people to be on the server, so I guess it applies to tcp only, which is probably not what the game uses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the connection limit on win10, it’s 20. Does not stop more people to be on the server, so I guess it applies to tcp only, which is probably not what the game uses

Game uses UDP for packets, and AFAIK, the Windows TCP connection limit is about accessing the file system via network shares or some such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game uses UDP for packets

Sure?

39819998542_5772c1fc67_o.jpg

 

 

AFAIK, the Windows TCP connection limit is about accessing the file system via network shares or some such.

There's a concurrent connection limit for certain services such as File Services, Print Services, IIS, Internet Connection Sharing, and Telephony.

For Desktop Windows OS versions this limit is 20.

For Server OS (2008 R2 or later) IIRC the limit is somewhere in the range of 16M.

DServer however is completely unconcerned by that limit.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure?

 

There's a concurrent connection limit for certain services such as File Services, Print Services, IIS, Internet Connection Sharing, and Telephony.

For Desktop Windows OS versions this limit is 20.

For Server OS (2008 R2 or later) IIRC the limit is somewhere in the range of 16M.

DServer however is completely unconcerned by that limit.

Well yes, TCP is used at least for master server communications, transferring the mission, and maybe for chat, but I bet communication between clients about heading, speed etc. is done by UDP.

 

As I remembered, the limit doesn't apply to the dserver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TCP is also used for communication of gun hits etc.

 

Every client maintains a TCP connection to the server along with a UDP connection.

Edited by =TBAS=Tripwire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet communication between clients about heading, speed etc. is done by UDP.

The Screenshot shown is from a Client Connected to my DServer, after spawning, with Client activity.

There is no UDP communication visible between Client and Server, apparently it's all TCP.

I agree that this is quite surprising.

I would have expected "less critical" updates like current position, speed, heading etc. to be UDP whereas "critical" ones (bullet hit for instance) is expected to be TCP.

But here there's just one single socket established between Client and Server and that's TCP.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Screenshot shown is from a Client Connected to my DServer, after spawning, with Client activity.

There is no UDP communication visible between Client and Server, apparently it's all TCP.

I agree that this is quite surprising.

I would have expected "less critical" updates like current position, speed, heading etc. to be UDP whereas "critical" ones (bullet hit for instance) is expected to be TCP.

But here there's just one single socket established between Client and Server and that's TCP.

 

Cheers!

Mike

That's quite odd?

 

Wireshark of my own connection when troubleshooting disconnections definitely had bidirectional UDP and TCP.

 

I'll repost a screenshot later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to highlight that only guns hits causes a huge TCP out spike in bandwidth with that screenshot in a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... base line UDP traffic.

5 bucks on the table that it's just a frequent ping between client and server to monitor the packet delay and jitter.

The real data is within the TCP lines then.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, my guess is that's the positional updates in the UDP. Makes no sense to use TCP for something like that having dropped updates be re-transmitted. Gunfire hits and significant events though, you need to make sure every client (and the server) receives that therefore TCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if it was positional updates, it would have appeared on the DServer process too.

Ping packets would be sent from Client to Host, that would not appear on the DServer process, just like observed here.

Well, looks like this needs further investigation.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...