The future gaming experience

[NOX]

I hope that you have read some of my recent posts-all of which I have meant to have been supportive of your and the GRIN family's efforts. I have sent E-mails directly to the GRIN's web manager and hope that they have been shared. I hope that your new GR is better than what we ever have had before.

I played ballistics’ in a kiosk environment in Atlanta, NY and DC-great stuff and a whole lot of fun for the teams of technologists that I traveled with.

A proffer about myself I build transactional networks for both the financial and medical industries. I worked with Dave Levine of Butterfly. Net, during my days in the mid 90's, I was employed at the time by one of the worlds largest law firms. Butterfly.net had as employed ex-Pentagon resources that created a messaging technology that reflected GLOBUS (chakra). With IBM's assistance they cross-sold it to SONY for the PS2 net, with very mixed results. Sony has perfected it I have been told.

IBM and Sony have hand in hand rolled out CELL, and IBM has announced that CELL and LINUX will have a future in a blade server environment in the future. Crossing servers and environments on one shard is the Holy Grail.

If CELL meets its expectations alas with the realization that the PC technology that we have now dates back 30 years and needs to the radically updated, what do you need from us. I really believe that the open GL game that you have created has indeed put GRIN on the proverbial map, and now that you are guaranteed a pay check ( I am happy for that also)., again what can we do for you and GRIN.

IN 97 IBM rolled out it's copper chip with it's 2200 internal IO ports-we are going to recieve a dumbed down version in the SONY/IBM/Toshiba Technology, but if they deliver on the "Said" ability to cross process in the future the whole game changes-unlike AIDA in the 80's we are now at the advent with Broadband to make it happen!

If I am correct-and I know that I am about grid computing. How can we support GRIN.

For all those who read this and do not understand your future gaming experience to be as such: You assault a commercial district-some of your team enter a skyscraper and go into a CQB environment (when they opened the door to the building they are moved to a different "shard" on a multi blade server-you will not even percieve it.) The members that take the perimeter can be supported by Flight Sim guys, who are themselves on a different shard. Same game same physical server, but a different processor and if we get the latencey down there is no end.

PEACE OUT

NOX

[NOX]

In the last 15 minutes your game and the announcement have recieved over 6200 hits in thelast 15 minutes. 1020est Tampa home of Centcom time

[Striker-1991]

If we talk about the software for that effort and not the hardware we talk about an abstration of the hardware layer. Future software developers (application level) should not care about the underlying hardware infrastructure. This is abstacted, even the parallel and multiprocessing hardware you're talking about. This is currently done with the infrastructure most ERP systems and other enterprise systems rely on. This is of course new to the game industry. But it's done already with some of the most popular MMORPG's. Ok at a lower level but it works. You can connect virtual worlds and the computing and storage resources striped over a network of servers.

I see the problem not with the software or hardware, I see the problem managing a virtual battlefield with players joining/leaving even in midair or in the middle of a mission. What about the tasks the should achieve? This is even a great problem with MMORPG's but they have the RPG aspect and their points in mind.

The idea of that virtual battlefield with consumer games is not new, there was Spectrum Holobyte in the 90's who tried to make it combining their simulation games but it never happend. Only some games like OFP/VBS or JO allow a larger battlefield. OFP limited in player count and JO with 150 players it's only chaos and respawn hell. BF2 is to much arcade to talk about.

The biggest problem is the management and the coordination of what is going on there not the software or the hardware.

[NOX]

If we talk about the software for that effort and not the hardware we talk about an abstration of the hardware layer. Future software developers (application level) should not care about the underlying hardware infrastructure. This is abstacted, even the parallel and multiprocessing hardware you're talking about. This is currently done with the infrastructure most ERP systems and other enterprise systems rely on. This is of course new to the game industry. But it's done already with some of the most popular MMORPG's. Ok at a lower level but it works. You can connect virtual worlds and the computing and storage resources striped over a network of servers.

I see the problem not with the software or hardware, I see the problem managing a virtual battlefield with players joining/leaving even in midair or in the middle of a mission. What about the tasks the should achieve? This is even a great problem with MMORPG's but they have the RPG aspect and their points in mind.

The idea of that virtual battlefield with consumer games is not new, there was Spectrum Holobyte in the 90's who tried to make it combining their simulation games but it never happend. Only some games like OFP/VBS or JO allow a larger battlefield. OFP limited in player count and JO with 150 players it's only chaos and respawn hell. BF2 is to much arcade to talk about.

The biggest problem is the management and the coordination of what is going on there not the software or the hardware.

←

I like you!!

Spectrum and Gilman Louie did try ( he looked into the future when a 9600baud connection-nose to nose guns only on the first pass) and now we have boradband. I am a huge Falcon 4 fan going back to the original Falcon yes before AT. I built my first PC in 85 just to play.

I came from the flight SIM camp over to shooters, because I liked "Instant Gratification", but I soon realized after Clanning that the friendships-and competition won me over-I left the chase for most kills to one of support and then and only then found my true place in the online environment (with my friends).

You are correct in everything that you said, I agree that individuals joining a game is not very much fun, JO, BF2, AA-no cohesion to a principle-but if we look at true battlefields at SEA, LAND or AIR we realize that the time involved is immense-I do not want to loose the MAP MODDER people hear me out.

When the MAP is the dominant focus of the game, could be thousands of miles in size-the question is "how long in real life does it take to fight" WWII years as an example. The map may be created but objectives change. We as MP players play fifteen minute battles, very fixed, but what if a clan could be scheduled to fight a specific position assigned by an "advised" modder a map maker.

Within a GRID network you may have multiple regional servers i.e Europe, ASIA and NA, any subsection of the map visa vie could be a controlled area and therefore be taken offline, since it is secured and modded, yes it may be a quick mod ie trenches on a hill to protect a valley-but this is really what you want.

I donot play and never play a DnD type of game, but I would play a Empire Earth on Age of Empires type of game-this is the AI of this future type of game-WE here in the US call it Hearts and Minds, many call it logistics.

Cohesion of the clan through the new massively multiplayer maps can and only will be achieved not through matching but objectives within a gaming environment and not a game.

The Clan is and was your friends-that is why I have complained so much-was it the game GR1 or was it playing with your friends? I say friends

and then-an almost perfect game in GR v2001

Gaming in FPS will change in the next 4 years-I gaurantee that. Do we allow another RSE debacle in Allowing UBI to purchase GRIN as they did RSE, or do we stand up and say it is the communithy, and not the game!! and we want what we want.

That is why I mentioned the number of hits in the above post.

My personnality is not condusive to posting it actually takes me a couple of beers-7 or 8 to post.

To GRIN I know that you are unable to responde and Again I am happy that you got that big paycheck coming, but after this is over you need to make money-SO BO when the time is right tell us how we can help GRIN (I would actually buy some crappy releases to keep you funded-LOL, but GD serious)

NOX

Peace Out

[connie lingus]

I love flight sims, and I believe that the ballistics and damage models are the cutting edge in the PC game art.

I'd love to see what would happen with these models in an fps like GRAW.

[Striker-1991]

...

Cohesion of the clan through the new massively multiplayer maps can and only will be achieved not through matching but objectives within a gaming environment and not a game.

...

Yes I agree that only objectives or game tasks can control large battles. There is no way to do it just by enemy kills and lot's of respawns. There must be a strategic layer above the first person action. Just like in real time strategy games where you control the units and groups. After that strategic selection was taken, like storm that hill or defend that village, you go in FPS action with your mates until you finished that ojective. Opposing teams must be selected by objective history so that in some cases the same teams play the next strategic round.

For all the players should be a RPG like point system for their skills supporting, med, transport, ... (not only by enemy kills!) where people get rewarded for their work in the team. Ant these points must be persistent over battles just like in current MMORPG's.

This will work with clans or mates often play together, but for the game industry the market of casual lone wolf players is also important. These -play for 4 weeks- players bring most of the money and they don't bother the publisher for the game features. This is what you currently see with the majority of GRAW 360 players. We did the game, let's go onto Oblivion

Building a combination of the very successful MMORPG's with strategic elements of current RTS games and 3D first person action on large battlefields could be a great success if you find some tasks/objectives for lone wolf players because 70% are single players playing in irregular intervals within a multiplayer environment.

[NOX]

...

Cohesion of the clan through the new massively multiplayer maps can and only will be achieved not through matching but objectives within a gaming environment and not a game.

...

Yes I agree that only objectives or game tasks can control large battles. There is no way to do it just by enemy kills and lot's of respawns. There must be a strategic layer above the first person action. Just like in real time strategy games where you control the units and groups. After that strategic selection was taken, like storm that hill or defend that village, you go in FPS action with your mates until you finished that ojective. Opposing teams must be selected by objective history so that in some cases the same teams play the next strategic round.

For all the players should be a RPG like point system for their skills supporting, med, transport, ... (not only by enemy kills!) where people get rewarded for their work in the team. Ant these points must be persistent over battles just like in current MMORPG's.

This will work with clans or mates often play together, but for the game industry the market of casual lone wolf players is also important. These -play for 4 weeks- players bring most of the money and they don't bother the publisher for the game features. This is what you currently see with the majority of GRAW 360 players. We did the game, let's go onto Oblivion

Building a combination of the very successful MMORPG's with strategic elements of current RTS games and 3D first person action on large battlefields could be a great success if you find some tasks/objectives for lone wolf players because 70% are single players playing in irregular intervals within a multiplayer environment.

←

I like you even more!

Again I will not disagree with you. Yes the LoneWolf on Mercenary needs to finds a place. And in a FPS MMORPG you will span time zones, People got jobs School, University or what ever, but they do have a "playing envelope" that they play in (dedicated time available). Therefore, as you know ERM-would that be SAP or Peoplesoft by the way?, the messenging subparticles are trully invisible to the game, but entirely, due to "playing envelope" made known to individuals that have been assigned to objectives. Clans, individuals, Mercenaries, even people with certain skill sets can or could be assigned to "objectives" based in "GRID" data.

Let's say you a lone wolf snipper and you work nights in London, you could be assigned to a Lone Wolf Commander in Brazil for a certain task. You then make friends that you would never have met. Or if you are three guys from Clan A and Clan B need you you all play again more friends. I state these point not for you but the others who are trying to understand what we are talking about.

I worked in a Globus network in the mid 90's and I know that you can track gaming skills and points with JAVA, therefore if you can take an objective and not kill your people in the process you will gain points and rank. Or if you a successful team member just being a sneaky ###### you will gain points. But this could also work against you in that you would be in high demand for suicide missions-LOL

Peace Out

NOX

[NOX]

Future software developers (application level) should not care about the underlying hardware infrastructure. This is abstacted, even the parallel and multiprocessing hardware you're talking about. This is currently done with the infrastructure most ERP systems and other enterprise systems rely on. This is of course new to the game industry.

I am sorry for the late disagreement, I agree that at the application level they should not care, but your point is an INTEL paradigm.

Kasparov lost to Deep Blue (a cell tech) and IBM has given us 360 and PS3 via cell.

Billions of floating point operations through the PSE, no GPU no real CPU, and it is definetely not i386 or cics, but is risc in a form that we need to deal with.

So I agree and disagree, to a point

NOX

[Striker-1991]

I am sorry for the late disagreement, I agree that at the application level they should not care, but your point is an INTEL paradigm.

Kasparov lost to Deep Blue (a cell tech) and IBM has given us 360 and PS3 via cell.

Billions of floating point operations through the PSE, no GPU no real CPU, and it is definetely not i386 or cics, but is risc in a form that we need to deal with.

So I agree and disagree, to a point

NOX

←

As I said application level, not infratructure not specific hardware. I speak as a software architect who really don't want to build a system specific to one hardware (e.g. INTEL x86). It does not scratching me a bit that they all do specific hardware until i can run my virtual machines on it and the underlying (GRID/Network/Multithread) level is transparent for me. I don't have an Intel paradigm because most of our customers and even we have no Intel running . We have installations on HP-UX (Itanium2), Solaris (SPARC), Linux and Windows (x86). All with the same compiled code. All based on Java and J2EE. But this is the server side, the easy side I think!

On client side you have to deal a lot with that hardware specific things like gfx cards, cpu's, ppu's, special IO devices. This is the hard side for developers. The only solution for developers who doesn't have the time and money are multi platform engines like Unreal Engine.

[NOX]

I am sorry for the late disagreement, I agree that at the application level they should not care, but your point is an INTEL paradigm.

Kasparov lost to Deep Blue (a cell tech) and IBM has given us 360 and PS3 via cell.

Billions of floating point operations through the PSE, no GPU no real CPU, and it is definetely not i386 or cics, but is risc in a form that we need to deal with.

So I agree and disagree, to a point

NOX

←

As I said application level, not infratructure not specific hardware. I speak as a software architect who really don't want to build a system specific to one hardware (e.g. INTEL x86). It does not scratching me a bit that they all do specific hardware until i can run my virtual machines on it and the underlying (GRID/Network/Multithread) level is transparent for me. I don't have an Intel paradigm because most of our customers and even we have no Intel running . We have installations on HP-UX (Itanium2), Solaris (SPARC), Linux and Windows (x86). All with the same compiled code. All based on Java and J2EE. But this is the server side, the easy side I think!

On client side you have to deal a lot with that hardware specific things like gfx cards, cpu's, ppu's, special IO devices. This is the hard side for developers. The only solution for developers who doesn't have the time and money are multi platform engines like Unreal Engine.

←

Well as I let in to this you have determined corporate attempts visa vie the Consolers ie MS and Sony to co-op the development people to code specifically to their platforms, by the by, both standardized on Cell in one formmat or the other-leaving the PC behind. As I have said in other posts I do not beleive that the Intel/PC paradigm nor an AMD/PC architecture is the way of the future. Once you go beyond the 1970's technology that all PC are based on leaves you in a void. I am specifically stating and uncategorically that CELL will win, no more GPU, NO more hard and fast CPU, but as many cell processors as you can afford to populate in your box. Distributed processing and If I was asked I would base it on as many floating point calculations as I could drive.

I here you about JAVA, but I have seen so many attempts to drive applications in the way of open standards, and only mentioned JAVA to make a way for player stats to be tracked via a web technology. JAVA is no way to create a game, but like I mentioned a way to track player stats.

Gaming will be standardized via platform dependence, just like intel/MS and everyon else, MAC ie ie o.

If it is not we lose, again a cellular multi processor device is the best way to go.

I want my refrigerator and A/C unit to talk to my cell phone and coffee maker, and all of those PPU's could be used online as a gaming device.

Peace out

NOX