Multiplayer Major Flaw - This Tag Issue Needs Removed - Locally Modified

Multiplayer Requires NO LOCALLY MODIFIED ASSETS. Not a bright idea AT ALL.

If you have to reinstall the game FOR ANY REASON, importing ANY BACKUP CONTENT such as on a secondary drive I utilize SyncToy 2.0 to keep a backup of assets are listed as LOCALLY MODIFIED. Plain and Simple, dumb tag rule that needs removed from Multiplayer. The flaw is actually a CMP Flaw, not necessarily the Multiplayer Game itself. If the game can see the asset by SHOW KUID, you have the asset then you have a matching KUID DLS ASSET regardless if it is locally modified.

I had to spend an hour reinstalling a 10-14-2012 Backup Folder in the Trainz Game after trying to connect to a Multiplayer Session and then it failing.
N3V, rethink your position on the structure of Multiplayer and/or fix it to make it not a chore that kills your patience and then by the time you resolve you lack the time or willingness to actually play the game.

If you are the creator of the asset, guess what folks - If it is used, you have to redownload you own stuff cause it will show Locally Modified. Dumb.

You either need to overhaul MP and/or Overhaul CMP. Plain and Simple.

Five Thumbs Down on Multiplayer as structured now.


Here is a bright idea - CMP TALKS TO THE DLS SO LET IT WORK FOR THE END USER.

Since your Database Repair Takes So Darn Long if you experience a crash pretty much eliminating the ability to play for hours, have a reverify assets with DLS and then remove the darn tag. Save a h*ll of allot of bandwidth use on your servers and resolve a heck of allot else. No need to redownload assets.

"Show KUID" in the game engine sees the asset on the DLS, so why not CMP and then a simple removal of the "Locally Modified Tag".

I can understand the reason why MP does not permit locally modified assets - it's an issue of consistency.

Basically, all users of a MP session have to be using the exact same version of the route,session, and all dependencies, in order to avoid server problems.

Shane

CMP and the Game Engine recognizes uninstalled necessary updates.
A new tag is issued on that asset to the end user. This is the consistency issue RESOLVED.

Just don't buy the logic of locally modified tag.

It's meant to be for assets that the user has modified or created themselves (that have not been downloaded from the Download Station).

Shane

TS12 Multiplayer then for me is a total flop.
TS12 is a waste of money to me now.

Not redownloading assets i have already and or always have a FCT Ticket like I fortunately do now.
You never know when you need to reinstall your game or computer.
I have 230,000 assets. No way am I reinstalling when there is a much more efficient way to handle this.

I agree that they should add some sort of a check function to the game that goes and matches your "locally modified" content against the same items on the DLS.

There are enough techniques that make this possible without having to compare each asset bit-by-bit. Cant remember the name right now, but an example is of creating a 128 bit hash and compare that to the other; Im sure the techies will understand.

I agree with Mcguirel. A creator who uploads to the DLS still has those assets locally, and they will show as "Locally Modified", but they are also on the DLS. Why can't the CM show them as both?

Its a folder thing - anything in original will not show as locally modified whereas anything in local will show as modified.

Shane

Please keep in mind that manually committing an asset will, effectively, 'modify' the asset. There is no way, at least for existing content, to check if an asset that has been opened for edit then committed (or installed from a cdp file, or an external folder) matches exactly the asset on the Download Station.

This may seem minor, however any changes to assets could render the route or session un-playable. For example, you change the enginespec on a locomotive. Hence the two players have locos with different physics, which in turn causes the trains to end up out of sync, requiring either more bandwidth to do constant speed/location/physics updates, causing more lag.

Or you changed the attachment points on an industry (as an example for content created by the player). You then fire up multiplayer, and find that you have a broken map, since the fixed track sections are no longer attached to the track splines on the map.

These are some of the 'basic' extremes, which are more than easy enough to cause (actually, quite a few people still play around with different Especs...).

The only way, at the current time at least, for us to ensure that multiplayer itself doesn't get broken by modified content is to only allow content that is downloaded from the DLS, or is built-in, that is in an unmodified state. Manually installing content will constitute 'modification' as there is no way to check if it exactly matches the DLS asset without actually downloading the DLS asset again...

This may change in future, however at the current time to add extra info (such as a code that CM can use to check if an asset has actually been edited in any way) would require modifying every asset on the DLS, as well as modifying CM. Such a change would also require all content to be updated to that version of CM's build (so, as an example, build 3.7), which would mean that all content on the DLS would be TS12+ only (or which ever version such a feature was added in). This isn't something we would want to do, and hence such a feature is unlikely at the current time.

As it is, CM has a very simple method of checking if an asset has been modified. This is simply, if an asset is downloaded using the 'download helper' tool, or is built-in, then it is unmodified. If it has been imported from a cdp/external folder, or opened for edit then committed, then it is modified.

Regards

"This may change in future"

PLEASE!!

It causes more problems than it could ever prevent, plain and simple.

sniper297 said:

"This may change in future"

PLEASE!!

It causes more problems than it could ever prevent, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Zec's already put forward some ideas on what it might take to relax this restriction. Don't be so quick to leap at this option without considering what that means. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

chris

The vaccination is worse than any potential disease in this case, remember this?

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?78422-multiplayer-woes

To my way of thinking if the KUID numbers match that should be close enough for Disco, if somebody has changed his engine spec or other assets that should be HIS problem if it causes problems. Spending two days redownloading stuff to play one multiplayer game, then finding you have to spend another two days downloading on the other computer because the mere act of saving to CDP and importing same into the other computer makes it "locally modified" is just plain nuts. This is the primary reason multiplayer is so slow getting off the ground, too much penalty weight. If all else fails make it optional and add a disclaimer or something.

You know what, that's the best idea yet. Current choices are (YES) Let the 'bot do whatever it wants, go find something else to do while you wait, or (NO) Forget Multiplayer, it's more trouble than it's worth. So add another button;



Optional third choice, proceed at own risk to play with whatever you have. All the error checks and fussiness are only a major problem if you have no choice, and with the current setup there's no choice since it simply won't let you play until it's satisfied.

As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, the future will be the end of Multiplayer.
As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, expect to have to buy Multiplayer Routes from N3V.

Based on Zec Murphy's Comment, I will immediately stop working on the Multiplayer Route. While this is seen as an issue (a major issue in my opinion and need addressed effectively and swiftly with a Service Pack to CMP), lack of addressing for Multiplayer Growth without financial benefit to N3V has in my opinion just died. We, the content creators and especially route builders which is a very long commitment for quality have no reason to keep investing in the growth of Multiplayer.

Get rid of the Multi-Folder Structure, relax this issue now yet provide a clear warning to the end user as mentioned, or utilize a easy solution that I have provided.
Without this effort especially after a year of Multiplayer, this is a dead subject matter and not a Value-Added Feature.


A very tempting end-user test I am heavily considerring. Be smarter than the software and have the effective control to utilize a feature effectively which you paid for.
Will it work is yet to be determined, but I see why my idea would not work as there is no registry of the assets.

sniper297 said:

To my way of thinking if the KUID numbers match that should be close enough for Disco, if somebody has changed his engine spec or other assets that should be HIS problem if it causes problems.

Click to expand...

But it's not. It's a problem for anyone whom he happens to play with, even if they don't know him and don't approve of his decision.

chris

mcguirel said:

As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, expect to have to buy Multiplayer Routes from N3V.

Click to expand...

I've no idea what you're talking about. We are not currently selling any multiplayer routes, and have no plans to do so. There are plenty of multiplayer routes available on the DLS.

chris

WindWalkr said:

We are not currently selling any multiplayer routes, and have no plans to do so. There are plenty of multiplayer routes available on the DLS.

Click to expand...

To add to that (or correct that... or just to be generally anoying for yet to decide what reason :hehe: Technically there is no such thing as a multiplayer route. A session 'decides' if something is multiplayer, a route can have multiple sessions of which some can be solo and some can be multiplayer .

I hope that was enough smilies to get the idea.

"It's a problem for anyone whom he happens to play with, even if they don't know him and don't approve of his decision."

That's why there's an option for private games, which would also eliminate the kid who wants to throw switches in front of the other players to derail them. Would have been better to eliminate trailing point switch derailments altogether rather than locking the switches.

As I said, why not just add an option to disable the part that says "no you may not play" with a disclaimer that you proceed at your own risk? That would be simpler than fiddling with 200000 assets on the DLS, and anyone who actually enjoys all the fiddling around necessary to get a game running would have the option to leave it on. Gotta do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, because what we have now is just too clumsy and complicated for a game.

because as Zec pointed out (and i have tested this) something as simple as a spec modified can cause sever out of sync problems with multiplayer. imagine that one player can travel the same distance in half the time, so in your game you see him at one location since would be using the spec you have locally, but in his game he can travel much faster and is in a totally different part of the map than what you see, not to be updated until his train comes to a stop. of course this isnt always the case, but if you are not checking or ignoring it then how would the game know? it is much simpler to have it guarantee that the installs are using the same exact asset from a central location, the DLS, rather than rely on players to keep their own files synchronized. you know sooner or later there would be mass complaints about the problems that would cause. been there and done that, and i dont think anyone even plays the game anymore because of it - at least not the PC version, where files could be modded.

if your locally created assets are not modified and are the same as those on the DLS, why does it matter (aside from the length of time it takes to download or bandwidth restrictions) if you get them from the DLS one time. if they are not changed you lose nothing, if they are changed they are backed up anyhow and still lose nothing.

another interesting thing about this thread, is that after all the fuss about asset version support, you see here a cry to have them essentially all updated to the latest software just to meet your own needs. funny how everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too...

sniper297 said:

That's why there's an option for private games, which would also eliminate the kid who wants to throw switches in front of the other players to derail them.

Click to expand...

We don't want an environment where everybody has to play private games for fear that somebody is going to deliberately exploit the game environment, or doesn't know whether a particular problem is a bug or is caused by somebody in the game who accidentally changed something on their local machine. If that means that it's a little harder to make a multiplayer-ready route and session than it is to make a regular single-player route, so be it.

Would have been better to eliminate trailing point switch derailments altogether rather than locking the switches.

Click to expand...

That doesn't fix the case where somebody flicks the switch and sends you into another train at high speed. It doesn't fix the case where the AI decides that it needs to change your junction while you're expecting a clear run down the main line.

Sure, it's different to what we had before, but worse? That's certainly not an opinion that I agree with.

As I said, why not just add an option to disable the part that says "no you may not play" with a disclaimer that you proceed at your own risk? That would be simpler than fiddling with 200000 assets on the DLS..

Click to expand...

Well, we've already answered the first, but as to the second- why would you need to fiddle with assets on the DLS? I assume that you are not referring to the person creating the route, here?

kind regards,

chris