Launcher improvement proposal

[iTweek.]

Good evening community,  First of apology, because of the English I wrote it in here in the server area. wanted to prevent anyone from writing.

I do not want to attack anyone here just to point out that there is a problem that should be eliminated.

I know that it is not welcomed or ignored.  I am always written again on whether there is another possibility than to use the launcher.  Since I know that full build is just a transitional solution, I thought about why they did not like the launcher or what the problem was.  I made the effort and once again wrote to the people why they avoid the launcher. The reason is simple and in my opinion easy to solve.  The following problems have surfaced in most cases. The also time months are also known. I also think that's the reason why many players stay out.

Following problems:

Slow download of the files

Problems starting the Launcher (think this was fixed?)

No chat options.

 

Since I can not say anything on point 2, 3 how to solve it, I'm only talking about point 1.

 

The launcher itself is great, you could make it with a few features so much more friendly. I thought about it here.

First of all, the auto update server itself is a good idea. Only the problem is the launcher does not know if you get the full download speed out there.

The update system could be improved. You give the user the possibility to decide which server to take. That means that one deactivates auto server search and instead inserts a dropdown menu.
The dropdown menu should always come when either at the first start of the launcher, when updating, repair

 

Of course, this should also ask for update and repair.

Thus, a problem would be fixed that he selects the best server where replies but not the best server takes where you can download. yes is different for each user depending on the routing of the internet

###############

Problem downloading the game slow download.

The update system is good if you need to download or repair a few files. It is only very inconvenient for the people who have nothing yet so the new players. They have to download each file individually. This costs a lot of time.

You could easily fix it by saying the first install as seen on the picture above. 

he should not download the single data from / full / but

/first/fullbuild.zip (rar 7zip whatever)

Thus, he can download the first install at full speed without being able to watch why it downloads so slowly

=> Thus, the slow download problem would be eliminated

So in order to disadvantage the people who have slow internet you can also do the full build in 3 parts so that the launcher if he has finished a part he does not have to download it again.

( The update and repair function should remain unaffected,  except for the server choice )

##################

So I thought about how you could relate the community more to the test.

You could simply add a "tab" to the server list in the launcher.

See image.

 

As soon as you click on beta server list the launcher should ask if you want to download the beta client.

With the same schema as he downloads full client.  if he downloads it, he can download it in the same folder as renx and load it into a Renegade X beta server

Thus one can update the beta again and again and involve the community more.

######################

I hope my idea is accepted here. Because otherwise I get no reaction

I also think that many users will be happy about it.

 

The chat system could be built that way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by iTweek.

[Madkill40]

Drop-down list rather than auto-server is always a good feature, just a practical option not because the auto-select will screw up but just on the off-chance IF the auto-select screws up.

If the entire installation of files were in a set of 5 parts at the download phase via Launcher, phase 2 an unpack of the parts and iTweek is saying the download speeds would remain more consistent, a practice I've seen with other setup installations (bonus is if a connection is lost at any point then the launcher starts from the incomplete part), 

+1 x2

[Agent]

So breaking down the components of what yo're suggesting:

 

1: "We should have a drop-down menu to be able to select the source mirror"

I actually have 2 issues with exposing mirror selection to the end user. The first one you're probably already familiar with; I don't want to expose mirror selection to the end user because I feel it should be fully automatic -- if it's not selecting the best mirror, we should look into coming up with a better algorithm to select the best mirror. Perhaps we could even implement more aggressive failover, such that if your download speed drops significantly, act as if the mirror has failed and move on to the next.

My second issue with this proposal is that it will create some UI inconsistency if/when we add additional download mechanisms, such as peer-to-peer torrent based downloads. Since such a mechanism doesn't have mirrors to select, the UI element would need to be completely hidden from the launcher. This is similar to the first issue where it just makes the launcher feel unpolished and not fully flushed out.

 

2: "We should make initial installation download a single large zip file"

As far as compression goes, all of the patch data is already zip compressed -- there's no potential compression benefit here. The amount of data downloaded will be the same; only the HTTP request overhead would be reduced.

Additionally if the user is using a poor connection and downloading a single large file, and the download gets corrupted or the connection fails, then we have to restart the download entirely. We cannot simply resume the download. This contrasts starkly with the current method of downloading -- since you're downloading many smaller files, if one of them is corrupt or if the connection fails, you can just redownload the file from the same or another mirror. You can't accomplish that level of stability using a single large file.

Finally, a critical issue with this is that many of the mirrors do not have the necessary storage capacity available to support all of the current patch data in addition to all of the patch data again in a single large zip file. We would have to drop mirrors from the list, which is much more harmful to download performance than the overhead of HTTP requests.

 

3: "We should make accessing the internal beta client easier, by providing separate server lists for example"

The internal beta client is internal -- it's not meant to be used by the public. It's primarily intended for closed testing between developers, moderators, and other occasionally invited guests. There is no desire to make this more easily accessible at this time.

 

4: "We should have a chat box"

Yes, we absolutely should, but it's not a particularly high priority at this time. There are other features we have planned (such as the aforementioned p2p torrent client) that are much more critical to, say, a 1.0 release. For an idea of the current priorities, here's the currently queue'd tasks for the launcher:

 

Apologies for the late response, though these topics have certainly be hashed over and discussed before -- there's not a whole lot of need for re-discussion when no variables have changed.

[iTweek.]

1:

As for an algorithm to think hard. Since not everyone has the same presupposition. And depending on what internet access one has. Think this will cause more problems than actually there.
Do not make the mirror public? You could also just rewrite the links in

Denver 1 renegade-x

denver2  renegade-x

nyc  cncirc 

[...]

If you now put the failover crass one will no longer be able to download something.
As I said the problem with the many little date and checking takes too long. But in detail, I can not say anything exactly what fails. Not on the patch server

The servers can bring the power. More times tested with a 1gb file

I would advise against peer-to-peer torrent. Since they are banned in most datacenters (The controls are not there, but are forbidden by most).

Me to my part can not use P2P at all.
Because my internet provider just blocks it. I can also play cod or other p2p games. Because I simply can not get connected.
I have my internet provider on it, but well the rest you can think.

This is widespread here in Germany. (exceptions prove the rule)

 

2:

I would do it this way.
Many patch services do it that way. They download packages that are split.
Let's take a look at the renx is "packed" 6gb.
you could split it into 1gb parts each. And then check the hash value if the file is damaged.
Thus, if one has a bad internet connection, he does not have to download the complete 6gb and can gradually download.

There are fewer requests and the server can send size "internet packages" to the request. Thus, the download would be much increased durability

if the server is not reachable for any reason the launcher should stop, hey please choose another server the current one is bussy

 

With the space I can not really say. Now only from my server can go out.

It means that the server has to have so much paltz that 3x renegade-x fits on it.
Currently it consumes 28gb then + once the "full build" about 6-7 gb are 35gb

Of course you could save space if you run SDK and Blackdawn.  are always 14gb

But think 50gb for a patch server is totally alright. whether fullbuild is on it or not. as I said I do not know how it looks with the other server.

 

I am firmly convinced that it is not on the server.

I take the server now. Since my pc always takes although he is not just around the corner.

czech1.renegade-x.com  Download speed 

BlackDawn.exe

normal download launcher

from my possible 22mb / s. mind you that it is different for everyone. depending on the routing of the internet from the provider. So 10 mb / s to czech are very good. I assume that the server has 100mbits and I am already on the cap?
But that can be seen from many others. It does not matter, just wanted to show that it is not the server if they are not just a defective hard drive.  I deliberately did not take mine.

As I said, the patch system is not bad only some where the thing has a problem. But on any case not to the server.

 

3:

I can understand Okey and it is your decision. Just wanted to give the possible that you can test it with and can report problems. That the community can determine "a part" with.

4: With the chat system would be nice

These are my concerns. I hope they do not come across aggressively

lg iTweek

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by iTweek.

[AlienXAXS]

Hey,

Getting the "best mirror" for your location is really not that hard, there are a couple of ways of doing it off the top of my head:

• GeoIP Database (lame, but meh)
• Spend a few seconds before the download to work out the best possible mirror (based on ping, or download throughput during a test download)

I dont think you quite understand how the patcher / installer actually works - it uses a complicated algorithm that knows what parts of the old file need to be updated in order to be like the new file, this has major benefits:

1. No need to download the whole client again, you only need to download the changed blocks of each file.
2. The download size is much much smaller for an update
3. While 1 & 2 do not apply to a "full download", the downloaded "master" files can be kept in a temporary location and re-read to validate the game and re-patch any broken files back to standard (at the expense of more HDD space usage)

 

Quote

Many patch services do it that way

This is actually incorrect, many patch services actually use the block difference method, such as: uplay, origin, steam, renx to name a few.

Quote

I would advise against peer-to-peer torrent. Since they are banned in most datacenters

Peer to Peer torrenting is exactly how World Of Warships updates it's clients binaries (along side the block level patching mentioned already), and it works well - however it does also download at a smaller speed over HTTP alongside the torrent, however most players would be not behind a nuts firewall that would block Peer-2-Peer traffic via something like Application Detection as they are at home behind a (normally shitty) router supplied by their ISP.

As for Data Centres blocking traffic, this is wrong - i have hosted servers in more data centres than i can count on both fingers on hands and toes on feet and none of them blocked traffic or even did any type of traffic sniffing.  Yes the companies that "rent" space from these data centres can of course block torrent traffic (i do just that on my network for the Customer VLAN).

[iTweek.]

Moin

 

I'm aware of how it works.
I'm not synonymous with the repair or update. It's great for these two things.
I am therefore the people who have nothing and have to download forever.

 

now apart from hdd memory. Yes, today is the smaller problem. There are very big hdds. But I digress

I would still advise against 2p2. 

You should not forget you should not compare it with other big games. Since the Renegade-x community simply does not have the financial resources for it.

And yes, I also host many servers myself not rented. 

[Agent]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:39 AM, iTweek. said:

I would advise against peer-to-peer torrent. Since they are banned in most datacenters (The controls are not there, but are forbidden by most).

Me to my part can not use P2P at all.
Because my internet provider just blocks it. I can also play cod or other p2p games. Because I simply can not get connected.
I have my internet provider on it, but well the rest you can think.

When we add the torrent client, you will still be able to use the HTTP downloads as you would normally. The launcher will first attempt to use the torrent client though, before failing over to HTTP. This feature has already been discussed in-depth internally and is planned.

 

On 1/4/2018 at 8:39 AM, iTweek. said:

Do not make the mirror public? You could also just rewrite the links in

Showing server names rather than URLs is already planned.

 

On 1/4/2018 at 8:39 AM, iTweek. said:

I am firmly convinced that it is not on the server.

I plan to run some benchmarks with the launcher to narrow down any issues with the launcher, if any exist. It's impossible to be reasonably convinced there is or is not an issue without any data to back up such claims. However, we're absolutely not going to change the patch process by consolidating the initial installation into a single or even multiple but still large files, for the reasons aforementioned in my previous post. There is nearly zero benefit to doing so, and would directly harm existing infrastructure.

Any possible changes would likely be related to trying to better parallelize tasks, buffer files better to reduce disk I/O, make the existing failover more aggressive (as previously mentioned), or otherwise improve mirror selection (maybe we could adjust it to source from multiple mirrors concurrently, which is one of the primary benefits the torrent client will also provide).

[iTweek.]

I can only say that it is not the update server. I've tested more times and at direct downloads. They were always faster than the launcher. Therefore, I can say that it is not the server.  Of course it can happen again and again the hardware or something else can go defective.

The failover increase makes no sense. This will be more problematic than it already is.

I have proposed solutions that are quick and easy to set and not to look for new experiments around. Of course it is always better. But that could also be tested later and just make the launcher so that it downloads reasonably. You can test the torrent later.

I'm not here to patch the play or repair function.

I'm here for the first download. That needs in my opinion just too much time and can scare off new users and have no more desire. Complain only the least.

Personally, I would first see that people can download the game quickly.

The first install is nothing but a repair. "Yes, I know that it can not compare like that". But it is going very well.

I mean only that it currently the installation of the game 1 hour claimed. Since you are currently faster with a fullbuild and unpack.

yes I also know that fullbuild is not welcome.

I can only write my opinion broadly and draw the attention of the authorities and a quick and easy solution said.
But if you do not want that, I can not do anything.

As I said I am concerned with the first install and not the repair or update.

[Agent]

If there's any issues with the launcher, it'll be narrowed down by in-depth debugging and analysis which to the best of my knowledge nobody has done. Your proposed solution is not sufficient not only for the reasons previously mentioned, but also because it would add complexity to the installation process without any significant performance gain, would remove the ability to resume installation, and would hurt performance on unstable internet connections due to clients having to redownload the entire client (or in your later suggestion, very large chunks) if a single file is corrupted during download.

And again, existing infrastructure could not possibly handle the additional data which would double the storage requirements for each mirror. Your proposed solution would take substantially more effort than you realize to implement, substantially more effort than you realize to maintain, and would provide substantially less benefit than you believe. There are many other possible solutions which would require less effort, and provide much greater value to the end client. Such possible solutions include adding a torrent client, downloading multiple files concurrently, downloading from multiple mirrors concurrently, etc.

[iTweek.]

I think we talk each other over.
I'll let it be good here now. Since I see that it leads to nothing. Build your torrent and then I'll see what brings I think nothing of torrent

 

nice evening or tomorrow still