24/7 Falcon Online CO-OP server
-
= Confused.
Dunc was referring to clock stuff
Anyway the massive MP games issues are related with CTD , unfortunately not easily reproducible / traceable, no CTD fixes in this U3 so nothing new to expect
-
Very disappointing to read but not totally unexpected after Habu’s unfortunate use of the words “major bugs”.
Not very diplomatic or helpful.
-
now i light of recent release of the Update 3 for Falcon BMS, Falcon Online will run a big test server on the January 8th.
You will probably (for sure) not see any changes with Update3 (But we are still working hard on the SA3 and B1B. :D).
-
Very disappointing to read but not totally unexpected after Habu’s unfortunate use of the words “major bugs”.
Not very diplomatic or helpful.
Why not helpful ?
I am just saying don’t expect any improvements in that area , sorry if you don’t find that helpfull
-
BMS team members have been involved in 20+ MP test in the last 2 months and it showed a good stability so far but under some restrictions and discipline of the users and squadrons…
And I was hosting one of them…
-
Waiting on a LSO….
-
BMS team members have been involved in 20+ MP test in the last 2 months and it showed a good stability so far but under some restrictions and discipline of the users and squadrons…
And I was hosting one of them…
Nice.
Default korea campaign ?
-
Could you please describe the procedure and restrictions you followed to gain such stability?
Just to check if I am doing the same procedure
Thanks in advance!! -
Nice.
Default korea campaign ?
For now based on Korea TE.
Next validation step will be campaign with the same amount of pilots. But I think FO has its own test on 8th…We’ll see what comes out of our tests.
Cheers
-
Yes, it is a good question
Could you please describe the procedure and restrictions you followed to gain such stability?
Is it possible to have the procedure ?
-
We were waiting for couple of months, hoping that BMS team works on Campaign Multiplayer issues not TE.
Everybody knows TE is more stable for flying but campaign is the heart of Falcon which need some changes.FO made a lot of tests, but they can’t do anything about poor MP code.
They can only provide you a feedback from massive Campaign events (not TE). -
Yes, it is a good question
Is it possible to have the procedure ?There is no official procedure but we did have some rules set between the users :
Falcon Installation:
Server
Server should have ACDATA and terrain check to insure client correct installation.
The base principle is 0 tolerance…Client
Falcon 4 BMS installation should match server and all theaters should match version.Network Settings:
To ensure the best possible network connection, please make the following change in settings.
First, you must modify the Falcon BMS.cfg file (make a backup of the file before):If you are on ADSL (upload less than 5 Mb/s in UPLOAD)
Add the following line to the Falcon BMS.cfg (Multiplayer section):
Set g_bClientServerConnection 1 // Force CS connection
At the time of connection you will need to set a bandwidth of 1024 (even if your bandwidth is lower).
If you are on cable or fiber (upload greater than 5Mb/s in UPLOAD)
Add the following line to the Falcon BMS.cfg (Multiplayer section):
Set g_bClientServerConnection 0 // Force CS connection, in this case, 0 allows P2P connectivity
At the time of connection you will need to set a bandwidth of 4096 (aim for 70% to 80% of your upload).
In general, all clients must check IPTV or any streaming must be off to ensure maximum bandwidth…
This procedure was written for our squadron 10y with 20+ players connected and help from the BMS team.
Enjoy!
-
The BEST method imo. to test anything about integrity (units, behaviour, multiplayer stability etc.) starts within the TE module, because campaigns can be too complex to extract and isolate a problem.
TE suits better for extracting and isolating problems (broken units in DB, corrupted .cam files etc etc) … and even was a test-bed for me to test the AI behaviour (comparing it with the original intented behaviour) under the BMS environment to begin with. Initial phase was to eliminated broken elements and understand the possible dynamics. From there a theater was the next move.At least, this was the method i did in the past. Even in 4.32 often things “were not stable” - for various reasons. Noone is to blame here. This is also why it took me month! to create a stable mutliplayer Redflag 4.0 able to host 50 clients plus. Same reason, why i dont want to do this hideous exhausting work anymore tbh. It takes a ridicilous amount of time and as you may know, “free stuff” often does not find the appreciation it deserves.
Still remember as you said, “i have never flown it”. haha. Month of work and most BMS guys did not even test it. Did i sell it wrong? or was it perceived “unworthy”? Can´t tell.I remember ALOT of valueable information was gathered back in days and i regret, that i have not shared this information properly for the next generations of theater-builders, or even with the BMS team. Always wished for better communication, but mysterious bias view-points and boiling emotions prevented that it seems. In retrospect, a loss for all.
Two years later …i probably forgot most crucial lessons to get things stable in terms of campaign-integrity on a MP level. Dream always was to combine falcons new MP capability with its dynamic campaign feature (FoF and AI all mixed up), because no sim delivers that “rich” expirience. That was my prime interest… others were focused on other also important features (graphics, avionics, tools etc… you name it).I completly understand the frustration of theater-makers, BUT i also understand the frustration of the BMS team, which have to work with an ancient bugged code. We (well, me not anymore) are sitting in the same boat - litterally.
The problem of reporting “bugs” to the BMS Team is localizing them properly in the first place ! Just having a crash-logs and hunches are not enough. We cant bother you guys in helping to find the problems. I understand, that you guys need solid, reproduceable errors to address the FIXING, not waste time in other peoples problems finding them. But i also understand, that you guys need more testing and testers on a MP level. FO provides that oppertunity - use it.
-
Thank you maxwaldorf ! That confirms what we test last time !
-
This post is deleted! -
I have flown with four for 3 or 4 years now maybe longer .anyway what they do is amazing and am surprised more people don’t take advantage of the theater . I check all the time and no one’s flying
-
Thank you for keeping the falcon alive it’s the first sim I bought and definitely got me away from Xbox and into computers.
-
I can report that Sundays test went very smooth without any server crashes. I had every body follow what MaxWaldorf posted here. Not sure if we got lucky but we followed 3 simple rules for this test. Every client who had less then 5 Mbps upload to the server location had to be on CS and Connection Bandwidth: 1024. Now for the clients who were higher then 5 upload they were in P2P and with connection bandwidth: 4096.
During the test i had clients who had upload speeds ranging from .70 to 300 Mbps. I had 20 clients in 3d for more then 1.45 hours and no crash. Next test will be on the 15th of this month with lot more people and clients will be able to fly in a Force on Force environment, last test was only COOP. Also i should mention before starting the test i asked every body to not commit again for 2 mins if you were in 3d and had to go back to 2d. I have noticed that some clients go to 3d and then back to 2d again and again which causes some issues.
-
…… Also i should mention before starting the test i asked every body to not commit again for 2 mins if you were in 3d and had to go back to 2d. I have noticed that some clients go to 3d and then back to 2d again and again which causes some issues.
That was always our experience, and variations on that theme causing problems for the package.
Good to hear Archer, hope the next run also proves successful.
-
I can report that Sundays test went very smooth without any server crashes. I had every body follow what MaxWaldorf posted here. Not sure if we got lucky but we followed 3 simple rules for this test. Every client who had less then 5 Mbps upload to the server location had to be on CS and Connection Bandwidth: 1024. Now for the clients who were higher then 5 upload they were in P2P and with connection bandwidth: 4096.
I’ll ask the BMS Team to pin it at some point
Glad my instruction helped!
Don’t hesitate to review those urls and pop-in sometime https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?28960-Falcon-BMS-streaming or https://discord.gg/KQNHQBzCheers