CUDA

That's exactly what I was trying to verify. The remainig question involves scaling dependence between cores count, CPU clock and count of human or AI players it can process - i.e. how many computing power we will need for 4 players vs 8 AIs match, and how many Xeon E5-4650 CPUs we need to squeeze in for an epic 8 players vs 16 AIs battle, for example?

By the way, servers from mid-tier and up to HPC systems use GPGPU too, for example, in form of NVidia Tesla, Intel Phi or AMD FirePro, so even for dedicated server integrating it makes sense. CUDA itself, however, is vendor-dependent, OpenCL is more of a neutral GPGPU decision.

Well hat depends. A usuall PC needs under workload 200 to 400 Watts/hour in 24/7 this is around 150 to 300 kW a month in germany that is like 37,50 to 75 € per month.

I doubt the difference between running the client and running the client + the server will be that big. Definitely cheaper than paying for a rented server Also the usual pc runs at like 5% workload average, not 100% resulting in far lower energy usage.
Energycosts in germany are totally overrated. They could double and people would still be fine.

Well its the cost of hosting a 24/7 server at home and with PA And 1 or 2 Games a normal rig will be at 100% (thats at least my feeling). If u only host games when you are playing thats not a persistent server imo.

And 40€ is a good amount of money for me. But i know it is easy to spend others people money.

I don't want to spent 40€ for just a server each month, too.
Why should you ever want to run a full time server anyway? Just use your own machine as server for your normal games and that's it.
Normal RTS don't need persistent servers imho.

...That's alot of normals xD

And from what I understand, PA will work just fine without a persistent server.

But the fact that we can use one is just one of the best innovation in the RTS genre for a few years IMO!

You’ve misunderstood what he means when he says he wants the community to run servers.

He doesn’t necessarily mean he wants you to run one in your house, but instead he wants the community to rent servers, just as we do for Battlefield 3 etc. Our server costs about £20 a month to rent, and it provides low ping gaming for up to 32 players - which is great!

Comparing this to BF3 server is irrelevant :
- They don't need much CPU power for 16 or 32 players.
- They don't need much bandwidth for that amount of players. (because yes, you pay for bandwidth too when you rent a server).

I would be closer to one unit = one BF 3 player if you compare the "power" and bandwidth needed.

I'm really not sure you will be able to run two small concurrent games on the same server than a BF3 one.
A 64 players server cost around 200 euros for 3 months. Not sure a lot of people will do that.

noone wants this. I really hope it wont be a big problem to host "Games" without a dedicated server like it is in any p2p game.

Yeah, except that the host can close the game if his team start losing. Or cheat easily. Or whatever. Not talking of bandwidth requirement either.
Cola is hoping that people will behave nicely, I think he never went on the internet.

Also, most of 16v16 BF3 servers are ran by clans. With around 20 members.
It's probable than a similar PA server won't be able to make 20 players play at the same time. Maybe I'm wrong here, but we are talking of a cheap I3 server for that price. Simulation-wise, 64 players in BF3 are 64 units in a RTS. (destructions are managed client-side on BF3, they are desync on every client).

Most people DO behave nicely. You are basically accusing the whole community of being build up of idiots, that's just way too negative.

I'd be highly surprised to see 16v16 played that much. Most games will be smaller teamgames or 1v1 and it should not be that hard to find a group of friendly people of that size. Don't just randomly join games, talk with people, determine who is friendly and play together with them. ... or just ladder 1v1 away and don't care about all this stuff.

Not idiots. Just people.

Did you ever played an online game without an anticheat ?
Did you ever played BF3 or the dayz ripoff ? (aimbot paradise).
Even on FAF, some people make the game lag on purpose to avoid a lose.
On GPGNET, there was a abused disconnection bug to avoid a lose too in ranked.
Not even talking of some other sim abuse and the kicking mod.

People will do that, because that's the same in every multiplayer game I've played, no exception.

The more easy it is, the more it will be abused, you can be sure of that.

I'm talking of BF3 servers. Smaller ones are 16 or 32 players, and they already cost about 150-200 euros for 3 months. (300 for 64).

It also means that if you don't have a friend that own a dedicated server, or if you've missed the start of the game (and assuming you don't want to hop-in in the middle of a game, something that any competitive player will refuse), you will have to find another server running.

That means finding a server running the kind of settings you like, where the game has not started yet, that accept you ("hey, we pay for that, so no public slot sorry !"). That will be hard I think.

I think Zepilot is right. Even if only 1 out of 10 is behaving bad in the internet, it will be enough to ruin every 2nd game on PA, if its supposed to be teamgames ^^

I've only played a bit of shooters online, not enough to ever even care about people cheating in them. So I cant comment on that. The situation in FA was fine for the most part imho, sure there were some problems, but it was totally acceptable overall.

So just start a local server on your machine and let others join you. If you look at it from the surface it is just like in FA.

Either they have enough players to play private, in that case the server will probably not even be listed, or they are missing 1 or 2 people to start a game and will gladly welcome you.

If you can make sure that the person running the server is among the 9 out of 10 nice people you basically have the same situation you have in FA, which seems fine to me.
To make sure that the server-guy is okay you can just set up a server yourself. On your local machine, no extra costs involved.

I probably won't have the upload bandwidth needed for that :-/

(Also, don't want to wait for a game to finish to start another

I hope so! But after all, neutrino posted before, that this option wont be the focus. I hope it will be possible and work just fine. Only problem will be, if its a 5v5 and I die first, and I have to go offline, the game will not go on, if I leave, I guess....

Theoretically the server should not need more upload than any FA-player currently needs?
Sure that has to be tested as soon as PA is actually playable.

Since the server and the client are different programs you will at least be able to join another server while you are still running your server for the others. Running multiple server-instances might be another option, but that's probably limited to those who have spent too much money on their cpu xD

From a technical standpoint it should not make any difference at all if you are running a server in a cloud or at your home -given a properly setup router-, so it doesnt really matter what they are even focusing on.

Also don't start a 5v5 if you know you don't have time for it. That's bad, even in a p2p game like FA

He means that if a 5v5 is in play, he has to keep the server open and the computer on until it's over.

I remember neutrino saying that the bandwidth cost will be higher (FA send commands, PA send trajectories equations, vectors, commands, unit states, ...) and probably dedicated server or LAN-oriented.

I fear a 4v4 won't be possible on most connections (but I hope I'm wrong).

Sure but you still dont start a 5v5 in any game if you know that you dont have time for it.

Yeah those are valid points, I didn't think that through that much. I also hope you are wrong