[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
22122: Re: [MUD-Dev] Creating a MUD - Overview of design
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Amanda Walker <amanda@alfar.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:28:25 -0500
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On 1/29/02 8:23 AM, Edward Glowacki <glowack2@msu.edu> wrote:
> In regards to raw performance, yes, UDP is a little better because
> you don't have to acknowledge every packet, you can just send as
> fast as the network can handle. For real-time applications where
> some loss is acceptable (say streaming video, where you need lots
> of bandwidth but if you drop a frame or two it's really not going
> to make all that much difference), UDP would possibly be the
> better choice. In short, stick with TCP.
At the risk of resurrecting past dead horses...
Each approach has its good and bad aspects. For a game with no
real-time requirements (such as a traditional text MUD), sure--using
TCP simplifies a lot of things.
For a real-time game (such as graphical MUDs, MMORPGs, etc.), UDP
can be a better choice. The graphics subsystem of a game like
Everquest, AC, AO, etc. is basically very highly compressed
streaming video.
Figure out what your game does and doesn't need, *then* start
designing a network protocol.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev