Can I use SignalR for Monogame? - signalr

Does SignalR client support Monogame?
I know SingalR support browser clients, iOS, Android clients, but how about Monogame?

It's a difficult question, because it all depends on your specific circumstances, but here's some general guidelines:
For FPS games (or other games where network speed is essential), you'll probably want a UDP connection (seeing how it doesn't have the same level of network package verification as TCP, making it faster) and then write your own protocol on top of it (to ensure packet validity), to achieve maximum connection speed.
For strategy games such as Chess or similar games where speed isn't essential, sure SignalR will work great.
Even then, I once tried making a ping-pong game in MonoGame, which used SignalR to inform the clients where the ball was, and in what direction it was moving. And that worked pretty well.
#Edit: After re-reading your question, I've realized you're not so much asking whether it's a viable option, but more whether you can actually use it. The answer to that question is a simple yes. Any platform that supports any kind of SignalR client, can be used with MonoGame.

Related

UDP or HTTP over TCP/IP for a simple multiplayer game

I am building a multiplayer game where players are simultaneously asked a question and they have to pick an answer. They have a few seconds to answer and they are asked the next question when the time is out or everyone has answered.
I am planning on using Java (or nodeJS if I feel like learning a new framework) on the server side and JS (jQuery and jQuery Mobile) on the client side. I might build native apps later too so I want to keep the option opened.
My question is: what server communication protocol would you suggest?
I was thinking of regular TCP (HTTP with Ajax) calls since latency is not really the issue but I am ready to review this choice if you suggest otherwise.
Thanks a lot for your help
When using UDP the burden to implement retry and congestion control will fall on you. Therefore, I recommend you stick with the reliable and easy TCP until there is a specific reason to switch. If latency turns out not to be acceptable, which I doubt in your case, you can switch to UDP.
Another thing to remember, if you are creating the game on mobile device and you don't want to lose the players connected over 3G, you will need to make sure you are using standard ports to connect to the server side, otherwise operators will disconnect you.
HTTP Streaming and WebSockets over TCP/IP is the best way to go. Lightstreamer, which leverages HTTP and WebSockets, uses TCP but tries to overcome some of its limits with some smart algorithms for latency reduction (which seems to be crucial for the game you described) and bandwidth optimization. Thus, it can be used with great benefits for any multiplayer games of any complexity (including MMORPGs, for example). At a first glance it seems it can fulfill your requirements, and it could be a good solution if you are also planning to develop native apps in a second step.
Lightstreamer is based on a publish/subscribe model, in which every item is defined by a set of fields whose values can change over time (in order of milliseconds). These could include "general items", subscribed by any users (e.g the game countdown; who is the first responder) and delivered in real-time. This way, the data delivery mechanism underlying your game logic seems quite easy to implement with Lightstreamer.
Have a look at this recent article (Optimizing Multiplayer 3D Game Synchronization Over the Web). You can walk through an online demo of a simple multiplayer 3D world in which Lightstreamer has been integrated for real-time synchronization.
The demo allows you to tweak each parameter of the scenario and simulate any flavor of data delivery, while checking the actual bandwidth consumption. Of course, full source code is available for free on GitHub. You could give it a try. Let me know if you need some help :)
[full disclosure: I work for Lightstreamer]

How do modern implementations of Comet/Reverse AJAX work? Any stable C# WCF or ASP.NET implementations?

What is the correct way (or best) way to implement Comet, HTTP Push, or Reverse AJAX?
What .NET implementations would you recommend?
I have hear about, WebSync and PokeIn, both are paid implementations, I have used PokeIn and its pretty straight forward. If you are looking forward to code your own COMET implementation, I just can say that its a complex task, because you need to modify the natural behaviour if IIS. Its a hacky way to get around the limitations of the HTTP protocol and you need to know really well what you doing so don't end up breaking things around =).
It's also known as long-lived
requests. This is also by far the most
complex method to implement.
Basically, a request is made by the
client, and the server very slowly
responds, which causes the connection
to be maintained. Periodically, when
the server has something to push,
it'll "burst" send the information, so
to speak. This approach gives you
real-time push, which is great. But,
it has a serious down-side: holding
connections open like that isn't how
the underlying protocols are meant to
work, and most servers aren't terribly
happy about it. If your traffic gets
too great, you'll chew up threads on
the server and wind up bringing your
site down.
ref: http://www.coderanch.com/t/121668/HTML-JavaScript/does-Reverse-Ajax-Works
JOBG is correct re: the complexities; it's probably not a task you want to undertake lightly. I'm one of the authors of WebSync, and I can attest that it's a difficult task.
There are a ton of examples in the download, and the community edition is free.
Microsoft is developing HTTP push in SignalR
https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR

Reliable udp broadcast libraries?

Are there any libraries which put a reliability layer on top of UDP broadcast?
I need to broadcast large amounts of data to a large number of machines as quickly as possible, and generally it seems like such a problem must have already been solved many times over, but I wasn't able to find anything except for the Spread toolkit, which has a somewhat viral license (you have to mention it in all materials advertising the end product, which I'm not sure our customer will be willing to do).
I was already going to write such a thing myself (because it would be extremely fun to do!) but decided to ask first.
I looked also at UDT (http://udt.sourceforge.net) but it does not seem to provide a broadcast operation.
PS I'm looking at something as lightweight as a library - no infrastructure changes.
How about UDP multicast? Have a look at the PGM protocol for which there are several commercial and open source implementations.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of OpenPGM, an open source implementation of said protocol.
Though some research has been done on reliable UDP multicasting, I haven't yet used anything like that. You should take into consideration that this might not be as trivial as it first sounds.
If you don't have a list of nodes in the target network you have no idea when and to whom to resend, even if active nodes receiving your messages can acknowledge them. Sending to a large number of nodes, expecting acks from all of them might also cause congestion problems in the network.
I'd suggest to rethink the network architecture of your application, e.g. using some kind of centralized solution, where you submit updates to a server, and it sends this message to all connected clients. Or, if the original sender node's address is known a priori, then just let clients connect to it, and let the sender push updates via these connections.
Have a look around the IETF site for RFCs on Reliable Multicast. There is an entire working group on this. Several protocols have been developed for different purposes. Also have a look around Oracle/Sun for the Java Reliable Multicast Service project (JRMS). It was a research project of Sun, never supported, but it did contain Java bindings for the TRAM and LRMS protocols.

HTTP As Communication Layer for a Game

I've just started dabbling in some game development and wanted to create a simple multiplayer game. Is it feasible to use HTTP as the primary communication protocol for a multiplayer Game.
My game will not be making several requests a second but rather a a request every few seconds. The client will be a mobile device.
The reason I'm asking is, I thought it may be interesting to try using Tornado which reportedly scales well and supports non blocking requests and can handle "thousands of concurrent users".
So my client could make a HTTP Request, and when the game server has somethign to tell it, it will respond to the request. I believe this illustrates what some people call the COMET design pattern.
I understand that working at the socket level has less overhead but I am just wondering if this would be feasible at all given my game requirements? Or am I just thinking crazy?
Thanks in advance.
Q: Is it feasible to use HTTP as the primary communication protocol for a multiplayer Game.
A. Using HTTP as a communication protocol may make sense for your game, probably not, but that's for you to decide. I have developed applications for Windows Mobile, Blackberry, Android and iPhone for just over 10 years. All the way back to CE 1.0. With that in mind, here is my opinion.
First I suggest reading RFC 3205 as Teddy suggested. It explains the reasons for my suggestions in detail.
In general HTTP is good because...
If you're developing a browser based game - flash or javascript where you don't create the client, then use HTTP because it's built in anyway and it's likely all you can use.
You can get http server hosting with decent scripting super cheap anywhere
There's a ton of tools available and lots of documentation
It's easy to get started
HTTP may be bad because...
HTTP introduces huge overhead in terms of bandwidth compared to a simple TCP service.
For example Omegle.com sends 420 bytes of header data to send a 9 byte payload.
If you really need comet / long polling you'll waste a lot of time figuring out how to make your server talk right instead of working on what it says.
A steady stream of http traffic may overload mobile devices in both processing and bandwidth, giving you less resources to devote to your game performance.
You may not think you know how to create your own TCP server - but it really is easy.
If you're writing the server AND the client, then I would go straight to TCP. If you already know python then use the twisted networking library. You can get a simple server up in an hour or so just following the tutorials.
Check out the LineReceiver example for a super simple server you can test with any telnet client.
http://twistedmatrix.com/projects/core/documentation/howto/servers.html
WRT:
"my client could make a HTTP Request, and when the game server has somethign to tell it, it will respond to the request."
This is not how HTTP is supposed to work. So, no, HTTP would not be a good choice here. HTTP requests timeout if the response is not received back with the timeout (60 seconds is a common default but it would depend on the specifics).
Please read RFC 3205: On the use of HTTP as a Substrate, which deals with this.
With the target platform being a mobile device (and the limited bandwidth that entails) HTTP wouldn't be the first tool I would pull out of the box.
If you just fancy playing with all this technology, then you could give it a go. Tornado seems like a reasonable choice, if the example on the web site is anything to go by. But any simple server-side web language would suffice for serving up the responses you need at the rate you have mentioned. The performance characteristics are likely to be irrelevant here.
The COMET method is when you leave a HTTP connection open over a long period. It is primarily there for 'server push' of data. But usually you don't need this. It's usually much more straightforward to make repeated requests and handle the responses individually.

VB.Net - Networking method for client/server game

My first question so go easy on me :)
I've been developing for years and have written WAY too many apps (mostly web apps) using web services - I'm happy with SOAP/WSDL/etc... I also used to write TCP/IP client-server apps back in the day using good old winsock.
I'm a bit bored and looking for a new project to expand my skills so decided to have a go at doing either a game or some sort of server monitoring and remote control application
I haven't decided which and the answer to this question will hopefully inform my decision.
What I'd like is some advice as to which methods I should be looking to handle the communication.
Let's assume I'm doing thew game for the moment - I want 2-way communication with low latency and the ability to handle as many simultaneous connections as possible.
I've considered web services but it seems like a lot of overhead - especially as I'd need the client to expose one as well.
TCP/IP would do the job but seems like it's a little low-level and I lsoe a lot of the advantages like definitions. Presumably I'd need to formulate a new protocol for the communications etc... I'm also unsure how I'd have one client use multiple channels for concurrent information - eg a chat and updating location information. I could attempt to multiplex this in some way but my initial ideas re: the queuing seem quite messy
.Net remoting - I've not really touched this much at all. Seems to have low overhead and more flexibility than webservices but I don't know enough to evaluate properly.
I'd really appreciate any input you can provide (and a link to a tutorial would be fantastic)
Thanks in advance for your help
EDIT: I've had an answer which points me at a UDP library. Is UDP appropriate for this? For location information/similar which requires no history, I can see how this is advantageous but for a chat, a lost packet could be an issue - or do I manually send back an acknowledgment of receipt? If so, aren't I duplicating TCP/IP functionality for limited advantage?
Apologies if this is an incorrect way to expand on the question - guidance for that appreciated too :)
If you're up to date on .NET 3.5 SP1, then you should use WCF. You say you don't want to use web services, and I assume from that you mean you don't want to use SOAP over HTTP. WCF does a lot more than SOAP over HTTP. In particular, it can do binary over TCP/IP using the same infrastructure. It also has support for peer-to-peer.
Take a look at something like Lidgren and see how that work's. Its written in c# so its able to be used with VB.Net
Lidgren is a socket wrapper, Ive used it in a few small scale multiplayer games, ( mainly by using a header stating packet type. ie first byte represents packet type,
Lidgren

Resources