News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten. Parent comment

Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by k__ on Monday April 06, 2020 @04:50PM (#22797720)
What was your experience with WebRTC?

I read some people tried to use it for multiplayer, but the performance suffered with more than 10 players.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by lxtx on Monday April 06, 2020 @04:53PM (#22797747)
Only played it with my friends, don't think a map ever exceeded 10 players. So I can't say much about scaling - although it was a client-server model over UDP and not peer to peer networking.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by k__ on Monday April 06, 2020 @04:58PM (#22797798)
Ah, so you had a WebRTC datachannel between the clients and the server?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by lxtx on Monday April 06, 2020 @05:04PM (#22797853)
Basically yes, a custom datachannel implementation. Haven't updated it lately, but it's up at https://github.com/seemk/WebUDP
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by k__ on Monday April 06, 2020 @05:29PM (#22798079)
Pretty cool.

You don't happen to have some ping comparisons betwen WebRTC and WebSockets?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by lxtx on Monday April 06, 2020 @11:59PM (#22800240)
Sadly no, but I don't think there's much of a ping difference on a good network. With WebRTC (datachannels in UDP mode) you just get the benefits of UDP (or lack thereof :)).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:QuakeJS – A Quake Port to JavaScript with Emscripten by k__ on Tuesday April 07, 2020 @08:21AM (#22802504)
I see.

I had the impression UDP would lower the average ping, because you wouldn't have to wait on lost packages like with TCP.

[ Parent | on HN ]