Is This The 4.0 Shard Configuration? 

Well that's very kind, thank you!

Its always good to hear about these small things for a chuckle, knowing that this mass testing will identify more faults sooner rather than later and help build a better engine. Im sure in time this will allow them to host more players and area per server

Aka...marketing team talks server meshing.

I feel like all the mission stuff is because they still need to link those things to the replication layers, considering those act the same as during a server recovery. It’s all stuff that has to be loaded on 2 or more servers simultaneously, compared to other working stuff which is all locally loaded. Makes me believe that we’ll have to wait some time till we see this stuff work properly and without too much latency or possibility of exploitation.

@@idkusername2795 Yes, my understanding from some comments they made is that it's not just "a bug" but rather they need a new system to save/restore(/transfer?) mission states as well as link it to the RL properly, both for meshing but also for 30k recoveries. If they don't have it ready for 4.0, using 1 DGS per system could be a solution to avoid too many issues and still release Pyro + some sort of SM (even if very basic). Time will tell!

@@Quent1nB So it is what I guessed. A bit annoying to know that we probably still have to wait quite a bit, but it’s such mind baffling tech that I don’t really mind. Can’t imagine how difficult it’s gonna be to have dynamic server meshing working with all the stuff the game is gonna have, massive props to CIG for not trying to cut corners even if it is sometime a bit mismanaged.

@@idkusername2795 No project ever runs perfectly and clearly they have/had their fair share of issues, but like you said they're not cutting corners, they are doing such a high quality game in so many ways, we are slowly seeing the picture of the future ahead. If any other studio had tried this, we wouldn't have half of this, and would end up with... well, Starfield (no troll intended) I'm glad some people like you still understand all this, many people don't.

Yeah that's an interesting thought!

It's much more simple than that, they probably gave each area a server impact value, Something like Hurston is PRETTY HEAVY, while something like ARCCORP is pretty light. Then they basically balanced everything with this is mind, the space server is probably handling more moons, specially moons without bunkers, crash sites and caves, and all the Lagrange points. While they might just have dedicated a single server for both Hurston and Microtech (the heaviest bodies BY a countryside) , all in all the only way of knowing is to ask them or check every freaking corner.

@@GabrielGreedy Yeah that aligns with some of my reasoning. The 4 planetary Landing zones (i wonder if GrimHex is the same server?) have high traffic so those are handled together. The moons with atmo have a bit more server side calculations necessary than those with no atmo so those are together. Since the moons with no atmo behave basically like space (minus the 'gravity', at least), those were clumped together with the rest of space. The reasoning is arbitrary no matter how they divvy it up, because ever server is running the same code. I've always wondered why they don't just split it up by planetary system. All of Hurston and its moons, Microtech and its moons, etc. Who knows why they don't.

@@GabrielGreedy A follow up idea I just had is since they have player location data, they split the servers up in a way to avoid ever maxing out the player cap. That has to be a consideration too.

My pleasure!

From the looks of it, CIG doesn't know either

​@@mattwilson9293It's the same build pretty much as a few months ago. Testing infra, not new code.

Streamed out because the wrong server thought it was unused, or something like that, probably. That happens in live but only when no one's there.

Why do people keep saying this?? It's not players that'll change that. And for good reason. It's npc's. I do hope they create a huge pop server though. It's the only way some will realize why it's a bad Idea lol.. There's no greater lesson than the lesson you learn the hard way.

@@durtyred86 Yup when they’re getting griefed at every turn they’ll be singing a different tune

@@subliminal1284 Oh absolutely, because that tune will be 'Why are people assh*les?' and not what the OP mentioned, why does the universe feel empty. Completely different issues see?

@Marth667 you can't change the fact that assholes stink up a room, but.... You can change how many assholes you allow IN that room to cause a stink. The answer isn't cramming as many bodies in a server as possible. I remember when the pop was like 25 lol... Sure, there was plenty of dead space but there also wasn't that much ganking going on either. This is totally subjective, but I'd rather the open roads of Wyoming than the bustling city of New York any day. If we can meet somewhere in the middle, that'd be great. I can't see any other way other than a high npc pop server with players being the minority. When you make them the majority, especially in the current state of the game, "no security and light wrist slapping punishments," you get campers, baby seal clubbers, and a lot of griefing.

@@durtyred86 You're absolutely right, it is subjective. But this game has marketed itself as an MMO and with 5.2million backers people will expect the game to reflect that, I.e massive amounts of actual players present in the game as opposed to NPCs. If you want Elite dangerous level of player count in Star citizen that's a preference not reflected by the community. Regarding your second point, people griefing one another and the lack of punishments. Is that something that cannot be changed? If not then why mention it? Obviously the devs will add more security to kill griefers when that becomes an issue. The game will be fine, if and when it comes out, breathe.

Soon that won't be much of an issue as hangars will be instanced.

@@LuismaLorca yes, but when you fly out you are still going to be allocated as physical hangar. Just wait until someone goes AFK in there...

Yep good point, I didn't communicate that very well!

Also the wording they're using is confusing enough lol

Definitely possible!

Elite Dangerous is Peer to Peer, it doesn't have a server architecture for multiplayer other than some things like Economy, accounts etc

@@Unlighted4K0 That does make sense why the need for the instancing load times there. THX! :D

Thanks!

They are pretty tied in with amazon, so the understanding is that they use AWS (the cloud stuff).

Thats sort of being fixed in 3.24 with persistent hangers

This won't be a problem at all when personal hangars come online, because personal hangars are separate instances. The way it'll work, is when you call a ship from ASOP, it'll spool up an instance with your personal hangar in it, and you'll use the space port elevator to go to it. You can take as much time as you want in your personal hangar, loading and unloading cargo, prepping your ship, or just chilling with your pals playing volleyball with pico using the handheld tractor beams 😅 Since it's a separate instance, it won't clog up any of the hangar space at the space port. Once you're ready to depart, you'll submit your request as normal. At THAT point, your personal hangar instance will be merged back into the "real" space port, the doors will open, and you'll fly away. Once the doors close behind you, your personal hangar will be "despawned" and stored back in the database or whatever, waiting for you to return. When you come back, same thing: You'll request docking, your personal hangar will be set to one of the port's hangars, you'll land, the doors close behind you, and it switches back to a separate instance. So really, your personal hangar will only "exist" within the real verse during the couple of minutes it takes for you to take off and land. All other time its in use, it'll be a separate instance, or stored away in a database somewhere when not in use.

@@FutronBobwell answered - thankyou

@@FutronBob and if 20 people try to take off at the same time?

7800x3d and 4080 but at 4k and with OBS recording!

@@tenpoundfortytwo ah ok for 4k its normal then :)

They use Amazon Web Services (AWS), are can in theory choose different hardware configurations: aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/

@@tenpoundfortytwo I meant is hardware something like a graphics card, a CPU or a software.

@@yous2244 all of this server stuff in on their side, nothing to do with our hardware. The server performance has long been a problem for the game, I think CIG is trying to fix that. One of the options could be for them to run the servers on fasters servers with faster CPU's. But we won't really know unless they decide to tell us!

@@tenpoundfortytwo New World has the same problem because they use the same engine. Like boxes jittering everywhere or mobs and players jittering when they die. So hope they change it

@@tenpoundfortytwo thank you sir for answering my questions

idk what a NASA pc is for you, but if you watch some videos of 10-42 you'll see, that those required specs aren't that high. it's just not running insanely good on any system.

Uhh.... No. Did you even WATCH the video past the first 2 minutes? It's in development.They need to test to see what works and what doesn't. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TEST. They had 200 people and it ran at a consistent 30fps. Berks showed the AI is amazing. Missions are bugged because the mission team has to port their stuff over. Your "5 server fps" is not only demonstrably wrong, it's completely ignorant.

​@@DamonCzanik 100. Lowest server tick was 16 fps at full load and even then it was transient and settled around 20-25

@@DamonCzanik They use virtual machines, it will never work well. Just because i watched, doesent mean i agree. Iam 0% fanboy like you guys. If they do something well, i will commend them, but they seem to not get that much right to praise.

​@@Thor_Asgard_well it's not for everyone which is fine. No need to spread useless inaccurate information just because you don't like it.

@@TJ-314 I dont spread missinformation, you guys do with fanboying too hard most of the times. I backed the kickstarter back in the day, so i like it, but iam a realist and not a theorycraftsman.