On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:37:22PM -0800, Mark Wedel wrote: > Sebastien Bracquemont wrote: > > > A good thing i think is to have a "tile server" , separated from the game > > server (in a logical way). > > > > Clients could connect to the "tile server" to update their tilesets. > > This server could be accessed by the artists to add their tiles. > > this has been discussed before, but still has these problems: > 1) If the tileserver is down, the game may very well be unplayable (need the > images to play). Default fallback support in the client, showing ? icons for newly added tiles, that were not in the original faalback set. > 2) If there is one tile server per real server, thus just makes a more > complicated setup (two programs to run/restart if images are added (as > presumably, if image are added, new archs were added, which means the real > server would need to get restarted also). So in this case, nothing is really > gained, except more complication. I agree. But we need to have some way of requesting the fill of cache beforastarting to play. It's pretty frustrating to enter an area, meet a completely new monster, nicely represented by '?' tiles, and die before ever seeing the monster. This implies some changes to server. I don't know how the current system works, but if the speed of server is related to connection speed of the player with the worst round-trip-time, the tile serving has to be split up, so one player requesting cache fill won't comatoze the server. -- BSc. Pertti Karppinen < pjka at iki.fi > |'Bridge Players | Systems Designer, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland | Do | http://www.iki.fi/~pjka/ | Office : +358 14 260 2088 | It | HAM: OH6KTR QTH: KP22UF | Cellular: +358 40 564 0786 | on the Table' |