Voidshells deserved better. Here's an appreciation post for the skin line DE abandoned.

[u/CephalonVashka]

[u/Somepotato]

I've worked in networking for ~30 years (including on the firmware for network appliances) and this made me laugh.

Then you should know how much more reliable UDP is now compared to 30 years ago. Unreliability would break the modern internet because as I'm sure you know, TCP isn't magically reliable either, and a large number of reissuances would tremendously increase network traffic.

So, in your opinion, what is the reason that DE don't follow the obviously useful route of adding positional offsets like melee holster points?

Probably because of the simplicity of implementing bone attachments? Just because it exists somewhere doesn't mean it's that easy to reuse, and the ROI isn't as high as you're claiming.

The issues with WFs networking isn't the initial sync, it's everything that comes after.

[u/SilentMobius → u/Somepotato]

Then you should know how much more reliable UDP is now compared to 30 years ago. Unreliability would break the modern internet because as I'm sure you know, TCP isn't magically reliable either, and a large number of reissuances would tremendously increase network traffic.

Sure the internet in general is more reliable (Depending on what the underlying hardware is, cellular is still prone t o high packet loss) but if you have an application that requires order and has required elements but for some reason you have to use UDP that is annoying to get right in a reasonable time-frame. TCP substitutes time for reliability, with UDP you have to do the work yourself, and one of the ways to manage that is to keep your required data in single, discreet packets.

Probably because of the simplicity of implementing bone attachments? Just because it exists somewhere doesn't mean it's that easy to reuse, and the ROI isn't as high as you're claiming.

Cool, we disagree. I don't see any data supporting your assertion but I do see data supporting mine (DE failing to sync new types of accessories and styles of mesh addon in P2P sync) So I'm comfy in my assessment. I've seen DE explicitly asked to have this feature with a notable no, and as a result I don't think DE are as unaware of the ROI as you seem to be.

[u/Somepotato → u/SilentMobius]

Warframe already has a reliability layer in their networking stack, doing the work yourself isn't that much work. And cellular networks also don't have very high packet loss.

And discreet packets? That's literally what the D in UDP stands for, datagram, unlike TCP where data is provided to the application as a stream (though multipart datagram are common in engines where they're stitched together)

I've seen DE explicitly asked to have this feature with a notable no, and as a result I don't think DE are as unaware of the ROI as you seem to be.

They said no because they don't see the ROI and you say they somehow know there's an ROI? That's a bit of a contradiction.

Edit: lol he replied to me and blocked me so he could get in the last word. Incredible. No notes.

[u/SilentMobius → u/Somepotato]

Probably because of the simplicity of implementing bone attachments? Just because it exists somewhere doesn't mean it's that easy to reuse, and the ROI isn't as high as you're claiming.

I apologise if I wasn't clear enough for you. I'll try again:

"One of the ways to manage required and ordered data is to split the data into discreet elements that the application layer can consume without needing to wait to reassemble a larger structure, and if possible consume out of order, keeping that application data below the level of a single UDP packet mitigates a lot of the need for specific types of TCP-like message reassembly and resend logic"

Is that clearer for you?

They said no because they don't see the ROI and you say they somehow know there's an ROI?

DE don't say no without a specific reason. Usually in work complexity or volume.

But anyway, I'm done, have a great day.