[chrisseaton]

> This is gibberish and is a lot like Frank Abignail trying to BS pilots

Why are you so abusive in your replies? What causes you to talk to people like this?

> You should be able to see them and then the server starts sending you a position.

Yes that's what I'm saying you'd need for an untrustworthy client. But even that's not quite good enough - if you can 'see' them but it's just one pixel that the user might miss - should the client really get the full location information? It could highlight the enemy from that when a player would likely miss it otherwise.

> The problem is being able to see every player walking around all the time.

No that's a weaker version of the overall problem. If you give the player's location to the client when the player may not actually be able to see them then you're relying on a trustworthy client.

[CyberDildonics]

I can see we are at the "you're being mean to me" stage in the discussion instead of the "I should not spread misinformation then doubled down on it" stage. No one is abusing you and you aren't a victim when someone wonders why you're misinforming people. If what you are saying doesn't add up (temporal chicken and egg, partial location information etc), focus on that instead of attacking people that are giving you the feedback that what you are saying doesn't add up.

You originally said that a server would have to render the game and use the z-buffer to do any occlusion culling, but this is not only not correct, it is contradicted by something you yourself linked. Why not just admit that this was a guess and not from experience or research into how game engines work?

"But even that's not quite good enough "

You are the only one saying that. Going from seeing every player on the map all the time to only seeing players a few frames before you would have seen them anyway is a huge leap, which is again, what people are talking about and exactly what you linked.

"should the client really get the full location information? "

What partial location information are you envisioning here?

Again, focus on backing up what you originally said first instead of trying to shift the goalposts from how servers would "have to" do occlusion culling.

[chrisseaton]

I don't agree - but I think you're really just trying to get a reaction by being as aggressive and contrary as possible rather than actually going on what I've written, so I'm going to leave you to it from here.

[CyberDildonics]

Parent: "An untrusted client would not receive the enemy position until the enemy is visible. This, however, comes with the drawback that the server needs to do the culling - That's why pretty much nobody does it right now."

You: "But... it is done with a z-buffer. If an opponent is obscured behind a nearby pillar or something, that's not going to be culled in software - that's done by the hardware z-buffer as part of the render process."

Then I explained why this doesn't make sense on the server as a generalization and isn't necessary from a technical angle.

Then you ignored that you were both snarky and wrong, provided your own source which directly contradicts what you originally said and ultimatly called yourself a victim of aggression when I pointed this out.