4 ms·

That sounds like a very nice and thought-through architecture/design. What's your current status / how far away are you from a more or less complete beta (e.g.

by wfn 13y ago

That sounds like a very nice and thought-through architecture/design. What's your current status / how far away are you from a more or less complete beta (e.g. in regards to the minecraft client) (if you don't mind me asking)?

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
Well, the design has been through a few revisions. I'm not afraid to make breaking changes before version 1.0.0 (for example, I completely rewrote the level handling system to improve level editing performance by an order of magnitude). The current status of the server is: * Full support for Minecraft 1.6.4 networking (1.7.x networking is a WIP) * Full support for editing Minecraft levels * Implementations of all Minecraft data types (i.e. slots, metadata dictionaries, NBT, etc) * Slightly buggy emulation of Minecraft physics * Simple procedural terrain generation Here's an incomplete list of things that aren't done: * Lots of block interactions (like water emulation, or falling sand) were done, but were lost during the refactoring I mentioned above * Redstone and all related logic * Mob AI (work in progress, not very far along) * More detailed world generation (missing ores, caves, biomes, villages) Aside from the server, there's also a mature classic networking library, and a fairly complete client library (no rendering). The project is more than a year old now and is built on top of code that's about three years old. It's a pretty big undertaking, and it's going to take a while to finish. It'll be done faster if I get more third party help, though!
- wfn 13y ago
  Thanks for your detailed response. I see quite a few people are involved, and the project is a truly active one; I wish you luck. :) One last inquiry: have you done any benchmarking / performance tests on your code? I imagine that since the library is thread-safe, it should in theory be able to handle significantly larger numbers of online users, etc.?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
    It's been a while since I've formally tested it, but it performs very well. I don't have hard numbers handy, but CPU usage and memory usage is both well-tuned (and better than vanilla/bukkit). I've tested with a few dozen concurrent players and it didn't have any trouble. All players reported smooth gameplay, far better than vanilla or bukkit.

by wfn 13y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago

Well, the design has been through a few revisions. I'm not afraid to make breaking changes before version 1.0.0 (for example, I completely rewrote the level handling system to improve level editing performance by an order of magnitude). The current status of the server is: * Full support for Minecraft 1.6.4 networking (1.7.x networking is a WIP) * Full support for editing Minecraft levels * Implementations of all Minecraft data types (i.e. slots, metadata dictionaries, NBT, etc) * Slightly buggy emulation of Minecraft physics * Simple procedural terrain generation Here's an incomplete list of things that aren't done: * Lots of block interactions (like water emulation, or falling sand) were done, but were lost during the refactoring I mentioned above * Redstone and all related logic * Mob AI (work in progress, not very far along) * More detailed world generation (missing ores, caves, biomes, villages) Aside from the server, there's also a mature classic networking library, and a fairly complete client library (no rendering). The project is more than a year old now and is built on top of code that's about three years old. It's a pretty big undertaking, and it's going to take a while to finish. It'll be done faster if I get more third party help, though!

wfn 13y ago
Thanks for your detailed response. I see quite a few people are involved, and the project is a truly active one; I wish you luck. :) One last inquiry: have you done any benchmarking / performance tests on your code? I imagine that since the library is thread-safe, it should in theory be able to handle significantly larger numbers of online users, etc.?
- Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
  It's been a while since I've formally tested it, but it performs very well. I don't have hard numbers handy, but CPU usage and memory usage is both well-tuned (and better than vanilla/bukkit). I've tested with a few dozen concurrent players and it didn't have any trouble. All players reported smooth gameplay, far better than vanilla or bukkit.