Online Split Screen Latency Suggestion

Elipsis · 07-30-2003, 03:46 AM

Obviously to realtime a multiplayer split screen would be near impossible, if any of you have ever played a first person shooter you would know the frustrations of input lag (firing a weapon... 300 ms later it goes). For this reason any kind of server/client setup involving a host would be no good... but I thought of a way to deal with latency.

The same way Internet radio buffers music, you could buffer input. You would have your main window, and the person you are playing against would be a sort of picture-in-picture in one of the corners of the screen... it wouldn't be "live" but it would be "a few seconds ago" just to give you an idea of what kind of combo they have going and such. I know some games store replay files by storing the timing of the input... "recreating" the game as it was originally played, this kind of system could be used to let you see the person you are playing against with only a small delay. Because it is only 4 arrows, the netcode could be extremely efficient in comparison with most online games.

At the end of the game it would resynch scores, and affirm that the score you got, your opponent now sees, and vice versa... this resynching could be post-game, and would only have to happen once. Some of the old games (EX: Grand Theft Auto 1) had sychronization errors where you'd be like "dood I just won" and on the other persons game they're pounding on you. So to prevent any mismatch, rather than try to score your opponent from the streamed FFR buffer and hope that both people have the same scores, you could simply retransmit your "own" score at the end.

That seems like a good way to deal with any latency to me, even if it was a bad connection the window could go blank and say "opponent stream lost" and still resynch at the end with the scores.

I realize that multiplayer isn't a priority right now... I'm just trying to help out with the multiplayer idea.

-...

psychoman · 07-31-2003, 03:23 AM

YES BUT I SEE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT IDEA.

1. IF IT WAS A FEW SECONDS BEHIND, THE OTHER PERSON WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT POINT AT THE SONG SO IT WOULD BE A BIT DISTRACTING TO PEER OVER AT THEIRS.

2. SURE, LATENCY MAY BE A PROBLEM, BUT EVEN IF IT'S BUFFERED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SERVER HICCUPS IN TERMS OF LAG? THEN WHAT?

3. WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING? THIS GAME TAKES ALL YOUR AWARENESS UP.

THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS.

**87x** · 07-31-2003, 09:10 AM

umm... i think that would work,

Quote:

1. IF IT WAS A FEW SECONDS BEHIND, THE OTHER PERSON WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT POINT AT THE SONG SO IT WOULD BE A BIT DISTRACTING TO PEER OVER AT THEIRS.

hows this different if we were playing ddr and i had mods on and you didn't?? we still hit the arrows at the same time just the arrows on my screen would look different comming up, than yours... the answer would be to just not look at their screen, stay focused on your half...

Quote:

2. SURE, LATENCY MAY BE A PROBLEM, BUT EVEN IF IT'S BUFFERED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SERVER HICCUPS IN TERMS OF LAG? THEN WHAT?

well your opponient would see that you lagged because your side of the screen would stop moving... you would probably get some misses.. but then would just continue on playing...

Quote:

3. WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING? THIS GAME TAKES ALL YOUR AWARENESS UP.

i dont know what you mean by "taking all your AWERENESS up" but.. its just the idea of multiplayer, why would you want to play any game with someone else??... its just funner...

Yanah_the_Master · 07-31-2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychoman

YES BUT I SEE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT IDEA.

1. IF IT WAS A FEW SECONDS BEHIND, THE OTHER PERSON WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT POINT AT THE SONG SO IT WOULD BE A BIT DISTRACTING TO PEER OVER AT THEIRS.

2. SURE, LATENCY MAY BE A PROBLEM, BUT EVEN IF IT'S BUFFERED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SERVER HICCUPS IN TERMS OF LAG? THEN WHAT?

3. WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING? THIS GAME TAKES ALL YOUR AWARENESS UP.

THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS.

what's with all the caps?

IAMTHEEVILBEAN · 07-31-2003, 09:13 AM

every post ive seen by phscoman so far has been all caps....and split screen play is a sweet idea then iyou can play with someone good and not worry about failing hard songs

Elipsis · 08-1-2003, 02:15 AM

Latency would NOT affect your half of the game in any way, only the other peron's... you would see them miss but then it would be correct post-game... hence the idea of resynchronization.

QreepyBORIS · 08-1-2003, 10:52 AM

Wrong. It would affect the whole thing. Common sense: LAg won't do jack to half of it. The whole time they would be synced with eachother (if laggy).

Elipsis · 08-5-2003, 03:05 AM

QreepyBORIS, do you mean that lag would slow down both games equally?

It wouldn't if it was programmed to handle lag the way I proposed. Synchronization would not be forced, it would be dealt with at the end, you would just see them missing arrows when in their game they aren't, it wouldn't slow them down or anything. The incorrect misses would be fixed post-game.

QreepyBORIS · 08-5-2003, 11:06 AM

It wouldnt be the same on both computers, it would be the same on both halfs on one computer. I think it would register like that.

Elipsis · 08-5-2003, 12:59 PM

Ya, that might be a good idea too for fast connections, have it the same on both halves and just have the input off from lag (which... again... is fixed post game)

Lynux-Penguin · 08-5-2003, 04:32 PM

compensate for lag by buffering the song and incoming information and buffer the keystrokes while your playing at the end have the buffered keystrokes (and times) be compared to make sure that lag didn't affect your game play.
As for the screen, just leave only the four arrows and a combo counter and maybe a score count too. The less the better and less latency between the two. The real problem is in the implementation and the server to handle requests like this.

deltro300111 · 08-15-2003, 02:22 AM

...LOL all you need to do is send an A B C or D for Miss Perfect Almost or Good and have it be decoded it honestly wouldn't be that hard since 1 charachter is = to approxamatly 1 byte show combos and score at end...so yo only ge a big lag blast after your last arrow...

here, i'll do the math for you

@ 14.4k modem after downloading...eh, say a 1 meg song in 7-9 minutes
you send 1 byte every .01 sec...that leaves alot of time in between
you send a couple of charachters at the end, inotherwards keep it more client side...it'll be easier

07-30-2003, 03:46 AM	#1
Elipsis FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 313	Online Split Screen Latency Suggestion Obviously to realtime a multiplayer split screen would be near impossible, if any of you have ever played a first person shooter you would know the frustrations of input lag (firing a weapon... 300 ms later it goes). For this reason any kind of server/client setup involving a host would be no good... but I thought of a way to deal with latency. The same way Internet radio buffers music, you could buffer input. You would have your main window, and the person you are playing against would be a sort of picture-in-picture in one of the corners of the screen... it wouldn't be "live" but it would be "a few seconds ago" just to give you an idea of what kind of combo they have going and such. I know some games store replay files by storing the timing of the input... "recreating" the game as it was originally played, this kind of system could be used to let you see the person you are playing against with only a small delay. Because it is only 4 arrows, the netcode could be extremely efficient in comparison with most online games. At the end of the game it would resynch scores, and affirm that the score you got, your opponent now sees, and vice versa... this resynching could be post-game, and would only have to happen once. Some of the old games (EX: Grand Theft Auto 1) had sychronization errors where you'd be like "dood I just won" and on the other persons game they're pounding on you. So to prevent any mismatch, rather than try to score your opponent from the streamed FFR buffer and hope that both people have the same scores, you could simply retransmit your "own" score at the end. That seems like a good way to deal with any latency to me, even if it was a bad connection the window could go blank and say "opponent stream lost" and still resynch at the end with the scores. I realize that multiplayer isn't a priority right now... I'm just trying to help out with the multiplayer idea. -...

08-1-2003, 10:52 AM	#7
QreepyBORIS FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: It is a mystery. Age: 33 Posts: 7,454	Wrong. It would affect the whole thing. Common sense: LAg won't do jack to half of it. The whole time they would be synced with eachother (if laggy). __________________ Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG.

08-5-2003, 11:06 AM	#9
QreepyBORIS FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: It is a mystery. Age: 33 Posts: 7,454	It wouldnt be the same on both computers, it would be the same on both halfs on one computer. I think it would register like that. __________________ Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG.

08-5-2003, 04:32 PM	#11
Lynux-Penguin FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1	compensate for lag by buffering the song and incoming information and buffer the keystrokes while your playing at the end have the buffered keystrokes (and times) be compared to make sure that lag didn't affect your game play. As for the screen, just leave only the four arrows and a combo counter and maybe a score count too. The less the better and less latency between the two. The real problem is in the implementation and the server to handle requests like this. __________________ -LC

07-31-2003, 03:23 AM	#2
psychoman FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 9	YES BUT I SEE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT IDEA. 1. IF IT WAS A FEW SECONDS BEHIND, THE OTHER PERSON WOULD BE AT A DIFFERENT POINT AT THE SONG SO IT WOULD BE A BIT DISTRACTING TO PEER OVER AT THEIRS. 2. SURE, LATENCY MAY BE A PROBLEM, BUT EVEN IF IT'S BUFFERED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SERVER HICCUPS IN TERMS OF LAG? THEN WHAT? 3. WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING? THIS GAME TAKES ALL YOUR AWARENESS UP. THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS.

07-31-2003, 09:13 AM	#5
IAMTHEEVILBEAN FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,078	every post ive seen by phscoman so far has been all caps....and split screen play is a sweet idea then iyou can play with someone good and not worry about failing hard songs

08-1-2003, 02:15 AM	#6
Elipsis FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 313	Latency would NOT affect your half of the game in any way, only the other peron's... you would see them miss but then it would be correct post-game... hence the idea of resynchronization.

08-5-2003, 03:05 AM	#8
Elipsis FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 313	QreepyBORIS, do you mean that lag would slow down both games equally? It wouldn't if it was programmed to handle lag the way I proposed. Synchronization would not be forced, it would be dealt with at the end, you would just see them missing arrows when in their game they aren't, it wouldn't slow them down or anything. The incorrect misses would be fixed post-game.

08-5-2003, 12:59 PM	#10
Elipsis FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 313	Ya, that might be a good idea too for fast connections, have it the same on both halves and just have the input off from lag (which... again... is fixed post game)

08-15-2003, 02:22 AM	#12
deltro300111 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: d colon Age: 34 Posts: 1,014	...LOL all you need to do is send an A B C or D for Miss Perfect Almost or Good and have it be decoded it honestly wouldn't be that hard since 1 charachter is = to approxamatly 1 byte show combos and score at end...so yo only ge a big lag blast after your last arrow... here, i'll do the math for you @ 14.4k modem after downloading...eh, say a 1 meg song in 7-9 minutes you send 1 byte every .01 sec...that leaves alot of time in between you send a couple of charachters at the end, inotherwards keep it more client side...it'll be easier

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)