Author Topic: 64.simutrans.entropy.me.uk (Read 26197 times)

Ashley · « **Reply #35 on:** October 13, 2011, 11:12:55 PM »

Sorry Prissi I don't quite understand what you mean?

prissi · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2011, 12:52:33 PM »

When server's servgame is too low (i.e. not saving all stuff during the game) using such stuff will desync the fast or cause undesired behaviour. Best example would be the railgates, which will exclude player only until the next player join.

The downside is, that whenever something is done in the svegame version, manual saving with a lower number is needed to transfer this game to the next nightly. But since a release is planned shortly, I think the savegame content is save for the while.

Ashley · « **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:02:57 PM »

Oh I don't think it will be a problem for the pak64 server, since it's running the last stable version of pak64. When the next stable is released I'll update all my servers to run that.

Will the new listings server patch go into the next release?

prissi · « **Reply #38 on:** October 14, 2011, 08:58:02 PM »

The new listing server was the only reason we did not released yet ...

Ashley · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2011, 12:39:05 AM »

Updated server with new Simutrans stable version and new stable pakset, same map.

neroden · « **Reply #40 on:** December 06, 2011, 06:08:13 AM »

I may have found a bug. Simutrans reports that I am running the same version of simutrans and the same version of pak64 as this server is, and then when I push the "compare pak" button... claims the paks are different.

Before reporting this as a bug I'd like to make absolutely sure I have the exact same pak version. Please verify where I can download the exact pak being currently used on this server.

Ashley · « **Reply #41 on:** December 24, 2011, 04:15:38 PM »

neroden - it's the official release version from the download thread, 111.0 game binary (r4911) and pak64 111.0 (r609M).

I've restarted with a new map now, and turned on the pause while not connected feature. Will see how much fun it is.

IgorEliezer · « **Reply #42 on:** January 01, 2012, 09:35:50 AM »

That's a very nice server you have there...

Also: Hijacking an unlocked player to be able to use the chat FTW... XD

Ashley · « **Reply #43 on:** January 07, 2012, 04:44:17 PM »

Server has been restarted with a new map

ash1794 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 15, 2012, 11:25:54 AM »

Err why do i get a lot of lost sync messages...

Joliver · « **Reply #45 on:** January 25, 2012, 07:14:20 PM »

this seems to happen when the maps are heavily developed. we have WAY too many vehicles here, that may be compounding the problem.

-J-
I think at least some of us are ready to restart.

prissi · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2012, 10:02:44 PM »

A very impressive map. Even 46 percent of all passengers and still 29 percent of all mails are transported! Also a nice map for benchmarking.

Ashley · « **Reply #47 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:30:31 AM »

I've restarted the server with a fresh map, and upgraded it to 111.1 (with the same pak64 version). It's really cool how well-developed these maps get. As ever you can download the previous saves from:

http://entropy.me.uk/simutrans/networksavegames/sim64/

ash1794 · « **Reply #48 on:** February 04, 2012, 10:20:31 AM »

can't connect.. it reads that server's not respondin... any clue why?

jjatca · « **Reply #49 on:** February 05, 2012, 03:39:40 AM »

Same here, since yesterday, but thought it was my connection

jamespetts · « **Reply #50 on:** February 05, 2012, 12:54:34 PM »

The server listing page reports this as down.

Ashley · « **Reply #51 on:** February 05, 2012, 11:36:24 PM »

Back up now.

jjatca · « **Reply #52 on:** February 07, 2012, 12:27:06 AM »

The server seems to be down again.

ash1794 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 07, 2012, 01:56:32 PM »

Still the server's not respondin.. :|

Thanwer · « **Reply #54 on:** February 08, 2012, 04:01:50 PM »

I got lots of desyncs today, like one every minute...
You better fix it, since its near unplayabble :/

Isaac Eiland-Hall · « **Reply #55 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:06:23 PM »

Quote from: Thanwer on February 08, 2012, 04:01:50 PM

You better fix it

Please consider that the network functionality is still new, relatively speaking. Further consider that Simutrans is all-volunteer.

Do you think coders are not working on the network code? They are.

Please consider using different language and having different expectations.

Thanwer · « **Reply #56 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:23:24 PM »

sorry DELETED, I do not meant to offend...
If it helps, I realized that desyncs happens more often when placing signs and buying convois at depot...

jamespetts · « **Reply #57 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:42:20 PM »

Hmm - we are experiencing similar things in Experimental.

Ashley · « **Reply #58 on:** February 08, 2012, 11:35:52 PM »

This latest version seems less stable than the last stable release for network play. Having to restart the server more often.

Fifty · « **Reply #59 on:** February 09, 2012, 02:55:33 AM »

I've had at least one unexplained crash (no logfile, sorry) with this particular combination of old pakset + new executable, but none with new pakset + new executable. Perhaps it would be more stable to use the new pakset with the new executable? All of the maps are compatible with pak64 111.1.

Don't know what changes if any have been made to the netgaming code since 110.0.1 (when desyncs and lag were almost nonexistent even on developed maps), but 111.0 and 111. 1 have been less stable, had more desyncs and lag, and required significantly more cpu time online.

Dwachs · « **Reply #60 on:** February 09, 2012, 06:49:56 AM »

Quote from: Fifty on February 09, 2012, 02:55:33 AM

Don't know what changes if any have been made to the netgaming code since 110.0.1 (when desyncs and lag were almost nonexistent even on developed maps), but 111.0 and 111. 1 have been less stable, had more desyncs and lag, and required significantly more cpu time online.

This is surprising, as I am not aware of a change that could have a major impact on performance.

I am also highly interested in getting more precise reports on server crashes: What are players doing in order to make the server crash? What is your experience?

Ashley · « **Reply #61 on:** February 09, 2012, 09:02:39 AM »

I didn't think there was a new pakset version with the latest stable, but I will check again.

Fifty · « **Reply #62 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:49:12 PM »

Down again. My internet went down for a few minutes and when I returned the server was gone. There was another client online at the time.

Timothy, the 111.0 pak 64 is what you are running, r609. 111.1 comes with a new stable, r743 (Though in the splash screen still labeled 111.0)

Dwachs:

I have never seen a crash on the server in the past few days Timothy's been running 111.1. By instability in the past, I am talking a little more about not staying connected and responsive than crashes. With this combination of old pakset and new executable, I have had two random single-player crashes when away from the game and working in another window. One happened right on the front splash screen, the other on the desync message.

About performance-- I did a little test myself to benchmark the change in performance between 110.0.1 and 111.0. I used an old pak 64 netgame map as a benchmark (512 x 512, 7 million citizens, 2000 convoys) and measured average cpu use for a few minutes with resource monitor at a particular busy spot in the game with the minimap open and the game at full screen. 110-0-1 used 24% of one core for this map, while 111.0 used 34% of one core. That's a 42% increase in cpu utilization! This increase may be negatively affecting netgame connection stability (increased desyncs and lag).

I will keep you informed if I can find some correlations between player activity and crashes or desyncs.

prissi · « **Reply #63 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:51:51 PM »

111.1 should consume much less CPU. In my testgames they were running 70% faster in fast forward.

jamespetts · « **Reply #64 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:16:38 PM »

Quote from: prissi on February 09, 2012, 10:51:51 PM

111.1 should consume much less CPU. In my testgames they were running 70% faster in fast forward.

Interesting! May I ask what optimisation made this difference?

Fifty · « **Reply #65 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:23:43 PM »

Can reliably reproduce crash with Simutrans 111.1 and pak 64 111.0 r609. Just open it up to the start screen, let it run for a few minutes, and bam. I uploaded the logfile, but I don't know if it will be very telling. http://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/logfile111.1r609.log. No such crash with new version of pak 64.

Quote from: prissi on February 09, 2012, 10:51:51 PM

111.1 should consume much less CPU. In my testgames they were running 70% faster in fast forward.

Hmm. In my testing (no fast forwarding) 111.1 used only 1.5% less cpu time as compared to 111.0. 111.0 used about 34% and 111.1 used about 33.5% -- pretty negligible.

Ashley · « **Reply #66 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:38:15 PM »

I've started a new game with the correct pakset version, hopefully this should be more stable

Dwachs · « **Reply #67 on:** February 10, 2012, 08:50:19 AM »

Quote from: Fifty on February 09, 2012, 11:23:43 PM

Can reliably reproduce crash with Simutrans 111.1 and pak 64 111.0 r609. Just open it up to the start screen, let it run for a few minutes, and bam. I uploaded the logfile, but I don't know if it will be very telling.

This must be fixed by now, there was a problem with the scrolling text that shows the list of contributors.

prissi · « **Reply #68 on:** February 10, 2012, 01:48:20 PM »

The routine which looked up the next neightbour in grund_t were called during drawing/from vehicles, during way search as well as building. In test games I went from 12-13 to 18-20 acceleration in fast forward.

Vonjo · « **Reply #69 on:** February 11, 2012, 12:10:26 PM »

Nice city name

Author Topic: 64.simutrans.entropy.me.uk (Read 26197 times)

ash1794

Joliver

ash1794

ash1794

Thanwer

Thanwer