Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? Look up to the right. There is a search button use it. This gets requested at least weekly, it gets explained why this won't happen just as often. Hell there are other threads on the first page of suggestions also requesting multiplayer, 2 actually.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? Search bar... http://www.beamng.com/threads/5490-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/5271-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1939-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/5524-What´s-with-the-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1311-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/3633-Please-add-multiplayer!?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/780-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/470-Multiplayer?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/4121-Multiplayer-suggestion?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/6316-Online-multiplayer!?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/6983-MultiPlayer-Questions?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1567-Is-multiplayer-on-the-cards?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/6960-Multiplayer-Game-types?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/4128-...eds-to-be-put-into-this?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1776-When-is-local-multiplayer-planned-for?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1380-multiplayer-with-racing-derby-etc?highlight=multiplayer http://www.beamng.com/threads/1472-BeamNG-Multiplayer-(read-inside)?highlight=multiplayer Those are just relevant ones with "multiplayer" in the title. Seriously, read step one before you post.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? Sorry for trying to suggest a small step to futher progress of the game for all of us, its not like i said WHY DOESNT THIS GAME HAVE 50 PERSON OPEN MULTIPLAYER LOBBYS AND RACES AND A BUNCH OF OTHER REALLY DIFFICULT THINGS IVE SEEN IN THE SUGGESTIONS.. really try not to hinder other peoples suggestions when im sure this game has been sitting around long enough to have small invite only lobbys to play with freinds.. really dissapointed with the reaction i got for my first time posting... maybe the reason this game isnt going anywhere is because the people on forums bash other peoples fair opinions in the suggestions part of the forums. sorry for breaking the 2nd half of the first forum rule, i didnt read it fully. Even then thats 2.5 out of 3 rules. nobodys perfect, i would just like to see this game go alot farther with the great game they already created.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? All they're saying is that the developers are very aware of the demand for a multiplayer mode like you described. This game has been "sitting around long enough" ? It's an alpha and the developers ( what ? 3 total ? ) are still focusing on the core gameplay. Game isn't going anywhere ? Do you mean it's not going where you want when you want it ?
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? 2 programmers, 1 map artist, 1 vehicle artist and a ton of data that physically won't fit nicely down current network infrastructure and remain in sync.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? Dude... the problem is not your suggestion or anything with it, the problem is the repeated posting of the same old topic in a new thread. For the 200. time. You are welcome to contribute and state your support in another thread of the same topic please. All the people did, was pointing out there are threads already as you seem to have missed that fact.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? had no idea the team was that small, and by sitting around i mean ive had it on my computer for about a year waiting for a reason to play it, and i havent seen any obvious tweaks to it besides the moonhawk. but its only fair if they're still working on tiny tweaks, that does sound like it isnt quite ready for multi player. they have every reason to fine tune it before expanding their game to a bigger market.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? I am still amazed that 3 developers made this game! Think about it, a whole team of people made GTA 5 and it has horrid damage phyics! I wonder if someone gets good enough at BeamNG programing would they be able to join the BeamNG team of developers?
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? They're not exactly fine tuning it right now... for the last six months they've been completely rewriting a lot of the code and adding an ass ton of new stuff as well. Once the race update comes out, it'll practically be a whole new game.
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? Is it true that each car runs on a CPU core for now? Do you know if it will be updated to run physx? Or something similar? That would make for a lot more cars being handled at once, right now even with a high end gaming system huge Los in FPS just loading 4+ cars
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? I've heard that each car runs on one core. I have an AMD APU with two physical cores and four logical, so with that weirdness I can't say for sure. Physx is not planned, but OpenCL is at some point going to be implemented.
Re: I think we can all agree OpenCL is a library that more easily allows you to use the GPU for calculations. Such as the thousands of things that need to be calculated for vehicle physics.
Re: I think we can all agree video cards are more suited to the massive data streams required for this type of simulation due to their many cores. Mid-range video cards typically have about 1200 cores at 1GHz, while most processors have 4 cores at 3-4GHz. So each processor core can run about four times as many instructions per second as any one core on a video card, but video cards have several hundred times as many cores. Each core in your cpu can add 2+2 three to four billion times every second, with four cores, that's about twelve billion times that you add 2+2. Now on your video card, you can only add 2+2 about a billion times every second on one core, but with 1200 cores, you're getting into the trillions with how many times total it can add 2+2 per second. That makes it very, very good for the soft-body physics simulation in BeamNG.
Re: I think we can all agree excellent! Something like a GTX titan or a R290X will be super, imagine SLI, the possibilitys are endless
Re: I think we can all agree haha, yes, everyone would love to see multiplayer! But it's quite obvious that it may be a while yet before it's implemented. And about all the physics demands, the race update should bring 25% faster speeds! So that's something to look forward to
Re: I think we can all agree we need Multi-Player? TechnicolorDalek has already explained the gist of what OpenCL is so I won't bother elaborating on that. But PhysX is NVidia's own physics library. Havok, Bullet, Newton Game Dynamics and ODE are all alternative physics libraries. Games will integrate these libraries to calculate the physics for them rather than writing their own physics code, BeamNG does utilise its own code. In the case of PhysX though, it supports running purely on the CPU (in fact all the libraries I listed above support CPU only modes) or supports CUDA mode. CUDA is NVidia's own alternative to OpenCL, does more or less the exact same thing as OpenCL but only on NVidia cards. Its hard to compare CUDA and OpenCL directly to work out which is the best though. They do the same thing but in different ways. I think AMD cards get a slight edge in OpenCL performance over NVidia cards, but that is because NVidia cards don't support 100% of OpenCL in hardware and do use CUDA to emulate a few parts, on NVidia cards CUDA can hammer OpenCL. But because the implementations of the 3 situations are so different it is hard to draw direct comparisons. The Bullet physics engine supports both CUDA and OpenCL, it does appear to run more effectively under CUDA on NVidia cards than OpenCL on AMD cards, but that is only 1 benchmark. There is other software out there which flips that on its head getting better OpenCL on AMD performance than CUDA. Because BeamNG uses its own physics, it won't ever implement PhysX. Like TechnicolorDalek already said though, it is getting OpenCL. And yeah. Every vehicle in BeamNG runs in its own thread. Due to the high resource requirements of these threads you should find (and I do find) that windows will spread these across all of your cores rather effectively, so 3 vehicles should each execute on their own core on paper. Obviously if you run out of cores then you will start having 2 vehicles on 1 core, and this is where lag kicks in because it does take alot of CPU load to compute BeamNG vehicles. Its the best situation we can have until the physics are further optimised (simply better usage of resources or full blown OpenCL). Usually performance optimization doesn't come until some point during the beta stages. Standard software dev cycles used nowadays tend to have alpha used for implementing the features and then beta for fixing bugs, optimising what can be optimised and tweaking things for full release, sometimes there is genuine reason to add an optimisation in alpha and you are always doing some bug fixing the whole time and feature creep in beta isn't too uncommon, but don't expect BeamNG's non OpenCL performance to be increasing too much for a while (after the race update anyway, which is including a performance boost).
