Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
So many gameplay problems are O(n^2) or worse. 100 players is 10k updates a frame, for example, but 40% more players is 2x the load. 100 is a good round number. It’s easy to optimize until you hit it then stop.
Eh, I'm not sure I buy it. On @planetside2 their max server capacity was something like 1200, setting a Guinness record. And that's *one* process.
The number chosen aside, I think there are better ways to distribute work than "geographically".
I’m not saying more isn’t doable, just laying out the difficulties of the challenge and why I think 100 is a bit of a magic number. An O(n^2) problem has to do 144x the work going from 100 players to 1200. It’s doable, but not trivial.
At 20fps, an O(n^2) algorithm on 1000 players needs to complete a step every 50usec. Depending on the step that’s totally possible, but likely not easy.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
