Brick limit

[mctwist]

That would break saving.

No, it wouldn't.

[Ad Bot]

[Demian]

Umm, that would be no build at all and 0 bricks.

What I meant is that I have the structure of the building done. There is nothing inside it and very little outside.

[Ephialtes]

No, it wouldn't.

I suggest you do an opposite thing that removes bricks to render if you're too far away and removes them from the client.

Yeah, it would. You'd also have to re-ghost entire builds each time you go far enough away from them and then return which is way more of a pain in the ass than the monster ghosting at the beginning of the mission. Not to mention caching bricks on the client's HDD is a terrible idea because it's slower to access and you'd still have to effectively re-ghost when you want those bricks visible again in order to check for any bricks that were added/changed/removed while you were out of scope.

[tails]

The reason things add data to ram is because it can be accessed much faster then from the hard drive.

[mctwist]

Yeah, it would. You'd also have to re-ghost entire builds each time you go far enough away from them and then return which is way more of a pain in the ass than the monster ghosting at the beginning of the mission. Not to mention caching bricks on the client's HDD is a terrible idea because it's slower to access and you'd still have to effectively re-ghost when you want those bricks visible again in order to check for any bricks that were added/changed/removed while you were out of scope.

Still, your HDD is faster than your internet.

The reason things add data to ram is because it can be accessed much faster then from the hard drive.

That's why you load it before you reach them, meaning that the client wont notice it so much.

[Ephialtes]

Still, your HDD is faster than your internet.
That's why you load it before you reach them, meaning that the client wont notice it so much.

You're backing a dead horse here.

[MrMulch]

I laughed.

[-Jetz-]

Wouldn't deleting far away bricks be annoying for those running long distance teleporters?

[MrMulch]

Indeed. I know Ace would be pissed if this happened before he released his rpg.

[Ephialtes]

Wouldn't deleting far away bricks be annoying for those running long distance teleporters?

We've all unanimously agreed it would be a terrible idea I think.

[Bisjac]

maybe only allow dedicated servers a new limit. encourage clans to actually rent out a nice server the old fashioned way.

[Ephialtes]

I don't think anyone who runs a Blockland clan can afford to rent a dedicated server.

[mctwist]

Even if dedicated servers could have a higher brick limit, the client still have to see those bricks.

To fix more problems on my idea, the client have the original limit on 128k bricks, but when it reaches it, it moves brick from RAM to HDD that is out of sight. If bricks are removed, it takes the closest brick and fetches it back from HDD to RAM. If some bricks come in sight, and others are out of sight, it makes the same swap as above.
When it saves, it takes bricks from both RAM and HDD and merges them together to the file it saves to. (Ouch for events and owners)

If you are no fancy of my idea, then you come with something better.

[Bisjac]

Even if dedicated servers could have a higher brick limit, the client still have to see those bricks.

im referring to a REAL rented server, with lots of bandwidth. not some kid's extra computer he found in his grandmas basement.

[Radial543]

Even if dedicated servers could have a higher brick limit, the client still have to see those bricks.

To fix more problems on my idea, the client have the original limit on 128k bricks, but when it reaches it, it moves brick from RAM to HDD that is out of sight. If bricks are removed, it takes the closest brick and fetches it back from HDD to RAM. If some bricks come in sight, and others are out of sight, it makes the same swap as above.
When it saves, it takes bricks from both RAM and HDD and merges them together to the file it saves to. (Ouch for events and owners)

If you are no fancy of my idea, then you come with something better.

In your 'updated' idea, it would take time to move that memory from the HDD to the client (basically putting it back into RAM). I say this because when you have to update all the bricks on a server, if someone hit a brick that another client had cached on his computer, it wouldn't be smooth and would appear to be kind of laggy to the client because the brick would be destroyed a couple of seconds after that someone hit the brick. Your method would also chew up RAM like a dog for some older computers.

Lastly, when the game concatenates the RAM memory and the cached memory, it would really increase save time.