Multiplayer Compatibility G5 vs G4.5

[js3862]

Will G5 be locked down like previous versions to prevent G5 from seeing G4.5 sessions are will it be backward compatible with G4.5 sessions?

[jeffpn]

G2 did not work with G3. G3 does not work with G4. I'm seeing a pattern here.

[theluthier]

G2 did not work with G3. G3 does not work with G4. I'm seeing a pattern here.
Pattern? G3 doesn't work with anything?

[js3862]

G2 did not work with G3. G3 does not work with G4. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Yeah well thanks for the usual snarls, that taken into consideration you're some of the same guys that when asked about game modes berated people for being so lame as to ask for features included in FSone or for daring to try to get KE to make this into a silly game, now it's here.

I knew the likely answer when I asked, which is why I included "locked down like previous versions". So, if you don't mind, I'll keep asking for the backwards compatibility and maybe one day my silly lame request will translate into KE letting me fly with the guys I fly with down on G3.5 without having to load up a different version myself every time I want to do so.

Thanks again for the great answers! ::thumbs up::

[jeffpn]

It seems to me that RF's list server programs are version-specific. Not only are G3 and G4 incompatible, but so are G4 and G4.5. And the earlier versions of G4.5 are incompatible with the latest version of G4.5. I did not read your question as a feature request. It looked like a straightup question to me, that I attempted to answer.

[js3862]

Yes it was a question. Many times questions turn into ideas or elicit responses from those working on the program or both. G4.5, 4, 3.5 are "incompatible" because they have been written that way each successive version having features or some bits of code the previous versions were lacking. G4 had water and other improvements that 3.x didn't have so that's the reason that G4 was supposed to be unable to share MP sessions with 3.x even though presumably G4 could have been made to "speak" G3 for MP purposes as a client or host being limited to airports that didn't have water. The same could have potentially been true for G4.5 to G4 but again, having 4.5 "speak" 4.0 wasn't in the design even though it also could have feasibly been done.

So, the reason I asked, even given the history, was to hopefully either a.) elicit a response from the developers pertaining to the question or b.) possibly give them an idea.

[opjose]

And which "idea" are you trying to give them?

So far nothing new has been raised.

Though you are correct in assuming that the new features in G5 will likely PURPOSELY preclude interaction with previous versions.

[jbourke]

When it comes to multiplayer, previous versions of RealFlight are incompatible with RealFlight G5, and vice versa.

Jim

[HX3D014]

it is a good Idea. not the first time it may have been suggested.

But here is another brilliant IDEA.

make a new version of RF affordable to the new and the Previous owners, this way everyone has the same version.

Eh. how do we do that.

I Know...... Make a new version that is backward compatible with the older controllers.

Give them a discount seeing it is not needed to have the newer Elite controller.

this way. more people using the same version means more MP session that the majority could join.

I thinks it be best to move onward and progress. $80us is a good price. its going to inflate by the time that price comes to Australia, but I know it wont be $400au in my LHS.

We all have a priority list. what is important to some of us may well be completely useless to the others.

Backward compatible is built is.
G4 has all the other fields
G4 has all of the AO packs. For free.
G4 dose not allow the use of the old interlink Plus controller

Now G5 dose.

[js3862]

Ok, well now that the answer has been given, I'll move on. Apparently the thread is becoming an allow everyone to buy RF without the controller discussion now anyway.

Opjose, the "idea" was backwards compatibility for MP. I didn't say it was original but neither was asking for a game mode. Evidently enough people asked and it stuck, now we have a game mode. If enough people asked for backwards compatibility or a bridge server to connect multiple versions I'm sure GP and/or KE would eventually oblige, maybe not.

There's only one way to know for sure, ask. So, I did.

[jbourke]

There's only one way to know for sure, ask. So, I did.

It was a good question. These sorts of questions need to be asked.

You are right in pointing out that we respond to what our customers say they need. It's only through comments like yours that this is possible.

Jim

[12oclockhigh]

It seems less of a policy to exclude one version from another, and more of a change in the technology. Yes it would be great if everyone could fly together... but when the bits and bytes don't and can't communicate, you do the next best thing... you price the new version so as to encourage your old customers to move up.

Sadly, many will incur expenses related to hardware required for the move. That is the price of progress. It has always been this way with PCs. No one is forcing you to upgrade.

[JimmyG]

When it comes to multiplayer, previous versions of RealFlight are incompatible with RealFlight G5, and vice versa.

Jim


Is it possible to have G4.5 and G5 installed on the same computer so that we could still play MP with those that are on 4.5 and 5.

I have 4.5 now and what I want to do is get the upgrade to 5 but still keep the 4.5 installation so I still can fly, when I choose to do so, with those who do not upgrade from 4.5 to 5.

[js3862]

It seems less of a policy to exclude one version from another, and more of a change in the technology. Yes it would be great if everyone could fly together... but when the bits and bytes don't and can't communicate, you do the next best thing... you price the new version so as to encourage your old customers to move up.

Sadly, many will incur expenses related to hardware required for the move. That is the price of progress. It has always been this way with PCs. No one is forcing you to upgrade.

Ok, I said I was moving on but, I couldn't resist one more bite at the apple. After this I'm done, really. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I think much of it is driven by marketing reasons as opposed to technical ones. If you look at it from a "protocol" point of view, having disparate applications "speak" to one another happens all the time.

Considering the fact that RF G3,4,5 are all of the same developer and same basic application getting them to all speak to each other wouldn't seem to be, technically, a Herculean accomplishment. Even given the advances that 4 and 5 represent it wouldn't be far fetched to imagine an update that incorporates a MP module that can communicate properly with multiple other versions and remain transparent to the user.

Due to technical differences in what the client capabilities are, e.g. v4 introduced realistic water, you may initially be limited to photofields or legacy 3d fields but the communication of the telemetry information could still happen in generic enough of a way that the clients could reasonably interoperate. Once you have the clients communicating and working together on something like stock photofields you could then update the clients to ignore objects they don't recognize or to ignore coordinates associated with those objects so that they could share updated fields like those that ship with g4.x. An example of this would be the water in G4.x not being recognized in G3.x, an update could be made to 3.x to instruct it to ignore or just handle coordinates that would coincide with an object actually in, as in submerged in, a body of water and to interpret the water object as a comparable or even different object in G3.x.

This is all obviously theoretical, and I'm sure technically oversimplified (stop rolling your eyes developers), and since the powers that be on the sales and marketing side probably have zero motivation to devote development time and money to it, more than likely it's a theory that will never see daylight. Though, it would be nice to replace the selling point of "you can't connect to a newer version multi-player session so you'll need to upgrade" with the "man if you only had the latest version you could see this way cool other stuff that I can" word of mouth while in a multi-player session selling point.

[TheHeliCrasher]

I do believe it is because new versions have things in them that older versions will not reconize...hence problems in communicating with the other versions. I know when playing other games, for instance Half Life, Quake etc, you can usually only join another game with the same version. it actually only makes sense when you add things to software to make it a "new" version the older version will not reconize the "new" stuff which only makes for problems.

[TomXP411]

I do believe it is because new versions have things in them that older versions will not reconize...hence problems in communicating with the other versions. I know when playing other games, for instance Half Life, Quake etc, you can usually only join another game with the same version. it actually only makes sense when you add things to software to make it a "new" version the older version will not reconize the "new" stuff which only makes for problems.

What they need is an extensible protocol: set up the message packets so that extra data is discarded. That way, older simulators could see data from newer sims. They wouldn't be able to participate in the combat simulation, for example, but (theoretically), it would allow people to still fly together.

But with the $80 upgrade price, most people that fly R/C planes can probably afford the upgrade... I know I'll be ordering one, so it'll be less of a big deal than the 3->4 upgrade was.

[jeffpn]

I know I'll be ordering one, so it'll be less of a big deal than the 3->4 upgrade was.
Or the 2==>3 upgrade. This upgrade is very generous on KE's part. I paid $200 for G2, $200 for G3, and $200 for G4. Not to mention the fact that I bought all the AddOns and all the Expansion Packs, too.