Make a Game Client
Playing on internet browser such as IE or Mozilla can be slow some time . I'm sure a lot of people will Appreciate the opportunity to not deal with stupid slow browsers and play it like it is the real settlers we all are used to play .
+ You can add Full Screen option .
Nothing wrong with browser games
and if you want full screen, just full screen the browser. Simples
If at first you don't succeed, sky-diving is not for you.
There already is a game client. It is called flash player.
Flash is evil, closed, dead technology. With more and more mobil clients where apple & google & adobe abandoned flash it is logical step to make either client , which is what BB don't want for sure or change technology soon. BB made this game really great on flash and went beyond my expectations what can be done with flash. However I hope they consider changing client soon.
Yes, because changing language is a piece of cake and worth the investment... It's too late to change it now.Originally Posted by maslo64
Nothing wrong with flash. Except that iFanatics are having some trouble using it. But whose fault is that, eh? Until HTML5 takes over, we'll be using flash happily. For quite some time. What comes to evil closed technology, those terms are lot better associated with apple.
Maybe i don't know say your suggestion.P.S. If you want to be friends with me try.
I never said that it easy-peezi task to change it. Settlers is definetly cult game which will be here for some time, but Flash is just not future of web-development
and if BB want to progress with development of the settlers they just have to change it (despite the fact it's still beta). With limited multithreading and concurrency you will run inefficient code on one processor. CPU and GPU processor won't be much faster anymore and multithreaded apps is the way.
And yes I agree this is long term view, nevertheless sooner they change it better for all of us.
And there you come with another almost impossible suggestion to add to an application later on; multithreading. It's all nice if a language supports it, but if the application is not designed to use multiple threads from the start, it takes a lot of time to add it later. It's just not feasible to either change language or add multithreading (you don't even need to change language, because flash supports multithreading) to an already finished product. You need to completely redesign and rebuild for either of those suggestions, and i highly doubt the extra sells either (or both) of those options would add will pay for the costs to make it.
Although to be fair, you can still easily add some basic things like socket handling to threads, and then you would technically have a multithreading application.
And btw; "With limited multithreading and concurrency you will run inefficient code on one processor" - how does not having multithreading make the code inefficient? Multithreading is usually more inefficient than single-threaded applications, because each thread has some overhead and communication between threads also adds some overhead, and thus needs more cpu time and memory to do the same. Although that overhead is very minimal, unless you use a lot of short lived threads. Thus adding multithreading does not make the code more efficient.
Considering you took the time to write some longer posts as a response, i also took the time to explain why i think your trolling and thus only posted short snappy replies before.
Sir, please stay constructive.
With 11.4 you can do some concurency, but last version on Android is 11.1 and with iOS banned flash (together they share more than 70% of market) means no money from mobiles which is very unfortunate as it's still grow when comparing to PC bussiness. Don't forget that this is just client we are talking about, all application logic is bulit-in on backend servers which you don't have to change, so it's not redisgn of whole application it is "just" client. Do you consider flash applications to be running efficient ?And there you come with another almost impossible suggestion to add to an application later on; multithreading. It's all nice if a language supports it, but if the application is not designed to use multiple threads from the start, it takes a lot of time to add it later. It's just not feasible to either change language or add multithreading (you don't even need to change language, because flash supports multithreading) to an already finished product. You need to completely redesign and rebuild for either of those suggestions, and i highly doubt the extra sells either (or both) of those options would add will pay for the costs to make it.
Of course we are not talking about these pseudo-threads which doesn't not make any benefit to application performance,smoothess and personal experience.Although to be fair, you can still easily add some basic things like socket handling to threads, and then you would technically have a multithreading application.
You are right that context switching ,IPCs and SHM will add some overhead, however compared to utilizing only one core lets say from 4 you will get only 25% CPU resource utilization which is inefficient. With separation of threads for drawing canvas ,computation ,I/O ,etc. you can get better performance and user experience.And btw; "With limited multithreading and concurrency you will run inefficient code on one processor" - how does not having multithreading make the code inefficient? Multithreading is usually more inefficient than single-threaded applications, because each thread has some overhead and communication between threads also adds some overhead, and thus needs more cpu time and memory to do the same. Although that overhead is very minimal, unless you use a lot of short lived threads. Thus adding multithreading does not make the code more efficient.
Adobe is contributing to HTML5 more then ever and abandoning Flash for good of humanity, so it doesn't make sence to invest more money & time to development of client built on flash.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote