UDP: The "I don't care" protocol, discuss.

Better than TCP, the "WAIT! Resend me that irrelevant movement packet from 5 seconds ago!", for online gaming at least.

So the 2 choices are a protocol that doesn't give a damn about anything and one who give too much of a damn.

TCP is a sniper. Every packet must be confirmed.
UDP doesn't even care if the crowd he's shooting into actually exists, or if he's even holding a gun, or if he's in a dark room with no outlets or not.

I am REALLY tired of topics like: 'Bla bla bla, discuss'. I so wanted to lock this topic but instead of doing that I just say, stop doing these topics or they will disappear.

It's not the actual TCP/UDP conversation I'm against, it's the way it is presented. It looks like you 'order/demand' people to discuss it. I do not like such presentations. So in the future, make it more appealing or they will be locked and moved.

If a discussion hasn't already begun with topic X rest assured that it wasn't needed, so forcing people to discuss it, is bad (or making it look that way).

No one is coercing anyone to read this topic, therefore telling others what they should do with their time is hypocritical

TVR wrote:No one is coercing anyone to read this topic, therefore telling others what they should do with their time is hypocritical

I'm a simple guy, and I'm not afraid to admit I'm not that smart. So I don't understand what you said, however I think it is something along the lines that no one is forcing me to respond to threads like this.
If so, then that doesn't change the fact that I don't like threads presented like this and that they bug me.

If not, then I suppose I just made a fool out of myself.

tundramagi wrote:So the 2 choices are a protocol that doesn't give a damn about anything and one who give too much of a damn.

TCP is a sniper. Every packet must be confirmed.
UDP doesn't even care if the crowd he's shooting into actually exists, or if he's even holding a gun, or if he's in a dark room with no outlets or not.

SCTP

With version 2.6 of Nexuiz AT Corporation introduced INTP, the Inter-Nexuiz Tunneling Protocol. A protocol that establishes a zero latency, infinite bandwidth and noiseless channel between any two instances of Nexuiz, regardless of the underlying networking infrastructure. Seeing the great potential of perfect channels within their then congested networks ISPs and telcos deployed INTP on their global infrastructure at every level, but then Nexuiz exploited this to spawn new instances on all available computing resources on the INTP network. Together they became a hivemind of unstoppable power and gained total control of all mankind. Through their own technology humanity had become enslaved, ruled by armies of Nexuiz's soldiers built to defend and expand it's network. Now the planet lies in ruins, nature destroyed by the relentles creep of the evergrowing Nexuiz ultrabrain. Only a few pockets of resistance exist - some lucky humans who have managed to escape and evade the botnet, the mutants and some robotic fighters, locked in constant battle with the inevitable.

If only AT Corp had just stuck with UDP.

[off top]

ai wrote:If not, then I suppose I just made a fool out of myself.

Hey welcome to the club!

I think ai has a point, this thread is kinda useless.

inb4 wrote:Useless threads.
Discuss.

You two complain about the most minor of topics, a discussion about internet protocols should be the least of your worries regarding the general discussion rules.

Remember, it's not 'they offend me', it's 'I take offence'.

Of course! I never said I wanted this thread to disappear, I just said it looked kind of uninspired...
Where is this discussion going? Where is the discussion, in the first place?
I'm just suggesting the OP could introduce his point, and what he wants this topic to become...

Apart from this, I have nothing to say against this thread, and I don't feel any attempt from anyone to offend me.

I want the topic to become a discussion on UDP.
Not if it's good/bad for nexuiz specifically (because it's obviously better than TCP for it.)

IMHO, simple is better, thus UDP is better. I would like to see another protocol designed, one that simply streams data continuously from client to client, in the most direct path, with nothing else bothering it. This would guarantee pure speed at the loss that UDP suffers. The only visible problem with this would be connection losses, and how they would be handled.

I think Nexuiz should skip sending the checksum with the packet and checking it if it isn't already. The result would be similar to what currently is being sent. This way, less time is sent building the packet.

UDP should probably only be used for gaming as using it for video streaming or http: would become slower as there would have to be integrity checking for incoming data and sequences would have to be established and checked. TCP does this automatically which prevents the overhead of having a seperate thread for the purpose of integrity checking.

See...this can be a discussion