Multiplayer Campaign Issues
-
The only change between 4.32 and 4.33 is the fact that more data are now shared in mp.
Speaking about client POV : bw 1024 was a good compromise for 4.32. Now I recommend to use bw 2048 for 4.33
Anyway I’ll open (and stick) asap a new thread to explain these (theoric) rules about the bw setting
BB
-
Waiting for this sticky thread as many questions needs answers. Hope they will be covered.
-
@Bad:
The only change between 4.32 and 4.33 is the fact that more data are now shared in mp.
Speaking about client POV : bw 1024 was a good compromise for 4.32. Now I recommend to use bw 2048 for 4.33
Anyway I’ll open (and stick) asap a new thread to explain these (theoric) rules about the bw setting
BB
Much more sources for deaggregation in 4.33, IAMs and PGMs and I think more reliable FCR deag too. I don’t know how much deagg adds to network load.
-
Commercial??? what are you smoking dude and yes we have changed the Lan Card to cover that
10 Gig cards aren’t cheap.
-
Wait, so over the course of this thread, we’ve gone from 256 down on bms4.32, up to 512 for 4.33, but now we’re being told 2056?
Sorry but is there anyway to clarify exactly what we should be using as a client? Our server has about 10mb UP, so about 8 folk is ok, but barely 5 isn’t anywhere near right.
Is there any way we can lower the bandwidth limits a little (we do t for example need to see control surfaces moving around if stability is improved), without losing functionality. I’m ok losing out on cosmetics! -
Wait, so over the course of this thread, we’ve gone from 256 down on bms4.32, up to 512 for 4.33, but now we’re being told 2056?
Sorry but is there anyway to clarify exactly what we should be using as a client? Our server has about 10mb UP, so about 8 folk is ok, but barely 5 isn’t anywhere near right.
Is there any way we can lower the bandwidth limits a little (we do t for example need to see control surfaces moving around if stability is improved), without losing functionality. I’m ok losing out on cosmetics!Falcon BMS.cfg -> disable control surfaces etc sharing.
-
Thanks haukka, but will this not affect the ability for navy planes to trap?
-
@Bad:
This statement is wrong since the beginning Nothing has changed between 4.32 and 4.33. You should not believe all what is written in the forums. When the 4.32 was released I explained many time UP/DOWN speed statement but the guys come back again and again with the rule : host bw / number of clients and retreave 25%
BB
The main problem is (at least mine) that there is more or less none OFFICIAL information available how to set up a MP server for BMS. To be clear, i don’t talk here about hosting a session for a few clients but for 16 or more pilots. To get our squadrons server running reasonably stable i had to read pages of field reports from other server admins, get the essential infos out of hundreds of posts and of course running serveral line test with a big number of connecting clients.
After weeks of tweaking and testing several settings on the host and client machines we finally discovered we get the best results when all clients are connecting to the server with 360 BW setting (server running 13000). Even the 3 to 4 guy who can only connect with “dubious connection” can fly with us online.
Now it was stated 4.33 needs more bandwith, but how much more than 4.32? 50% more, two times more … what can we save disabling the controlsurface movements etc. When there wasn’t much changed form 4.32, why is “dubious connection” now a big problem …
There are so many things to consider that i already gives me headaches and I haven’t 4.33 installed on my machine for now
-
Wait, so over the course of this thread, we’ve gone from 256 down on bms4.32, up to 512 for 4.33, but now we’re being told 2056?
Sorry but is there anyway to clarify exactly what we should be using as a client? Our server has about 10mb UP, so about 8 folk is ok, but barely 5 isn’t anywhere near right.
Is th……It is not a simple Server BW / Client BW setting = Number of clients supported. Falcon uses a mesh topology, you are also sending data to the guy flying next to you directly. It’s not all through the server.
-
It is not a simple Server BW / Client BW setting = Number of clients supported. Falcon uses a mesh topology, you are also sending data to the guy flying next to you directly. It’s not all through the server.
Apologies, but I’m not sure what you mean here. I already know how to calculate number of slots. The server BW doesn’t really change (upload speed is upload speed), but the point I’m making is that there seems to be no firmly established SOP for what we can ‘get away’ with for a large scale mission (say 10-15 in general. For example, say we have 13Mb up, and we have a mission available for 12 folks. In 4.32, this would be no problem at BW 256 (our former SOP - we never had any issues related to server/client performance stability).
In the same example for BMS 4.33, I can totally accept a need to increase BW to suit the new features available. A bandwidth of 512 is perfectly fine, 1024 is close to 90% of capacity (any responsible server admin would be watching this cautiously and making sure of no other load on server to mess with BW), and 2056 would be a no-go without restricting access to flights for our squadron (hardly acceptable given the commitment many of us make to get on at our agreed times).
So with a mesh topology, do you mean to say we all need at least 2mb down/up to fly MP?
Also, could someone please tell me if NAVOPS will be affected by reducing/eliminating eye candy such as seeing the control surfaces/pilots heads turning in the .cfg file?
We have a number of BMS pilots ready to swap their -16 for a Hornet in the squadron,but only if they can fly in support of those wish to keep flying -16s (they complement each other’s roles well)!Someone who knows FOR CERTAIN explain this to me like I’m 5… My knowledge on these things is limited, I’ll admit, but I suspect that many others would like a firm, simple answer to these questions so that as many of our fellow simmers as possible can get the most out of your fantastic work.
If you don’t know 100% what will work for these numbers, please do not confuse me more by posting what will work with less folk or with more upload speed - neither of those options are available. I’d be happier if someone just said ‘not gonna happen, your server needs more bandwidth’ and be done with it. -
Guys relax on the demand needs. Have u measured the upload speed bw usage of your server during mp flights?
For Te’s it’s ridiculously low.
So what I’m speculating here is with the mess p2p needs 1024 for server and 1024 with other clients in total, like 256 for each so for 4 others goes 1024, maybe 3 for the flight, or for a bubble setting.
So a total of 2048 to be on the safe side for connection. -
It makes sense that TE’s need less bandwidth; however we prefer to fly campaigns. We never needed different bandwidth before, but obviously I understand now that comparing the new MP netcode to the old is useless.
On Saturday, our flight is going to run a -12 ship mission on stock iron fortress campaign to see how the server handles it. It will be set to clients running 1024 and the server will handle 13000 up. The maths works (just), so hopefully we will be able to tell you how it went! -
It makes sense that TE’s need less bandwidth; however we prefer to fly campaigns. We never needed different bandwidth before, but obviously I understand now that comparing the new MP netcode to the old is useless.
On Saturday, our flight is going to run a -12 ship mission on stock iron fortress campaign to see how the server handles it. It will be set to clients running 1024 and the server will handle 13000 up. The maths works (just), so hopefully we will be able to tell you how it went!I’m curious on the results. Please remember to share.
By the way we played a 4 player stock campaign Tuesday with 1024bw setting (the same mission black was discussing at the top of this thread) and we had no problem at all. However I know this isn’t a real proof of improvement because with 4 players we didn’t capped the server capacity. It only confirms that those were bandwidth problems for sure.
-
I’d be happy to share however we migrated servers to one with a bigger upload speed; so we’re hoping that sharing the server our arma 3 guys get (250 up) will hopefully take of our problems. It’s been justified on the basis of the sheer number of players looking to fly ( 12 confirmed this week alone, likely we will have to make up another flight for the guys who ‘drop in’). Our peak attendance was 20 in one flight but we’re hoping that this new arrangement with the rest of our community we will save a bit of money and it should still work (they don’t touch anywhere near the upload speed). Looking forward to informing you of a hopefully stable flight!
-
Well, unsurprisingly, stability was reported to be fine at 1024. However we noticed some problems with initial spawn on the carrier: I’d reccommend making sure either the deck is all clear of any and all AI flights (looks like there’s only space for - we had many cases of us relogging and exploding on initial spawn at taxi.
-
Hello Guys,
Could you tell me if with a dedicated server, is it necessary that the server enters in 3D with 4.33 ?
If Yes, Why ?
Thank youAcrolys
-
Hello Guys,
Could you tell me if with a dedicated server, is it necessary that the server enters in 3D with 4.33 ?
If Yes, Why ?
1.) YES
2.) That’s just how it is.
3.) Use “SEARCH” button. -
To be honest, we use a dedi-server via A VM in TeamViewer. At no point do we load the Server into 3D, they simply stay on the map. Once we fed it enough BW (enough for 1024 per person plus client and IVC), we haven’t had any issues using 32-bit version of 4.33.
However if you have issues with your server doing weird stuff and you’ve tried everything else, give this a shot. -
In our VFW server always stays in 2D too. Didn’t find any OFFICIAL statement contrary to that, to be honest, only speculations by common users. And NOW in falcon bms.cfg file there is an option to PREVENT server entering by accident 3D world. This tells a lot to me
-
In our VFW server always stays in 2D too. Didn’t find any official statement contrary to that, to be honest. And now in falcon bms.cfg file there is an option to PREVENT server entering by accident 3D world. This tells a lot to me
Thanks for backing me up on this - I thought I was messing something up!
Let’s use this topic to squash myths and establish facts! Once we have some tried and tested stuff, maybe an admin/dev could set up a sticky post with common solutions to MP issues, leaving just the facts and what works for 90% of users