Tasharen Entertainment Forum
Support => TNet 3 Support => Topic started by: KJIB on January 29, 2013, 11:40:36 AM
-
Network noob questions about TNet:
Does TNServer.exe just require a machine with a single public IP address?
(As I'd read that using the complete Unity networking solution it takes 3 IP addresses so, something that will run on a simpler shared server perhaps with less addresses will be good).
Also, does your client and client acting as a server TNet solution support NAT punch through for devices behind a fussy firewall?
Thank you.
-
Yup, just 1 IP.
NAT punchthrough feature is something I may add, yes -- but I can't say when. Punchthrough is easy to do with UDP, but TNet uses TCP as the primary source of communication, with UDP being only used for packets you send via SendQuickly -- and TCP punchthrough is even more challenging and less reliable than UDP.
Fred is now known as Fred? It keeps the last name you used, even if you disconnect. Was your name "Fred" before?
-
No, I was "Guest" before. If you look at the result from another client it looks right, i.e. you see:
"Guest is now known as Fred"
"Fred is now known as Fred".
NAT punch through
Just a thought: If NAT is still an issue for TCP with TNet (but NAT punch through is easy on UDP), is it possible to seamlessly revert to all coms via UDP so a player can still do everything anyway or if someone has a NAT punch through issue will they effectively still be unable to join/play a game if you only implement UDP NAT punch through?
Assuming UDP only is viable, perhaps this could be a temporary solution ahead of full NAT punch through on both TCP and UDP...
NAT punch through is a very high item on the list for most games. Do you think that you will raise the priority for addressing this in TNet and is it likely to lead to needing the TNetServer on a server with more IP addresses (i.e. like the Unity solution which I think needs 3 IP addressed)?
Will your NAT punch through solution still work on the Amazon EC2 servers (so we know what kind of servers to consider for future proofing)?
For my current work project TNet is lovely, spot on, well done!
...But for our future projects NAT-punch though will be essential and knowing that it will be addressed (ideally with some idea of timescale) and what kind of server solution to look for now would be much appreciated because TNet is so nice to use so far and it would be great to know that we will be able to stick with the same package.
-
I'm tempted to pick up TNeT with the current sale but the lack of NAT punchthrough is definitely a downside - not having to think about punchthrough at all like with built-in Raknet is a big plus. On the other hand, a lot of the stuff I'm trying to implement in my game seems like it is built into TNet (host migrations, game state, etc.).
Looks like Raknet (and I'm sure most other implementations) use UDP and manually have to implement packet ordering and retransmission that TCP provides, but get to avoid all the issues that TCP has with rapid packet transmission.
-
TNet doesn't need NAT punchthrough. Next version has full UPnP support that will automatically open up ports on your router without you having to do anything.
-
Unless your router doesn't support UPNP like my Airport Extreme and then no NAT == mostly screwed :(
I'd love to hear exact Apple sales figures but you can easily guess there are millions and millions of Airport products out there, especially amongst OSX users, so that's a HUGE marketplace effected with no local game hosting by TNet not having NAT support :(
To put it in perspective for me, we have over 65,000 OSX customers (not including pirated copies) of Cubemen 1 & 2. There is a huge possibility that many of these players use Airport products. We can't afford such bad odds.
We really need NAT support for local server hosting for Tnet. Please.
-
Failport Extreme is called that for a reason though!
-
Apple Airport / Time Capsule products have been very good in my experience so this is unfortunate. I'd love to see NAT punch through as well.