[gafferongames]

Maybe you can just be doing all the standard compression tricks, but still have a 10-20 times larger world? If so, why not?

[thunderfork]

Client performance characteristics? Speaking very broadly... I can't imagine a game that'd need that much data unless it involved a lot of streaming assets (audio, video, etc) or really, really naive netcode.

[gafferongames]

> I can't imagine a game that'd need that much data

I can :)

[mvdtnz]

Maybe instead of leaving drive by comments like this you can explain this to the overwhelming majority of people in this thread who think it's bananas.

[gafferongames]

Nobody has answered my question, which is if you can use more bandwidth, and in doing so supports a larger, more detailed world, then why not?

Why limit yourself to bandwidth usage designed around the turn of the century?

It's 2026. We can do better :)

[gafferongames]

> Now if you're the author, can you tell me what the space game does?

A larger more detailed world with a higher player count, networked using quake style netcode techniques ala. Counterstrike, Titanfall, Apex Legends with snapshots and delta compression, client side prediction and lag compensation.

In short, FPS netcode scaled up to 1000 players, but applied to a space game, not an FPS, because the world doesn't need another FPS right now...

[frollogaston]

My question and its followups have all been reasonable and non-assuming. I was interested in some more details, but not anymore, best of luck.

[frollogaston]

The article already started off saying the bandwidth itself was a problem due to egress costs, but that's not the only issue. Thunderfork already answered what else is wrong with it. Now if you're the author, can you tell me what the space game does?