In Unity4.
I'm making a network client and server.. Two different unity types.
The client is the actual game, the server is a separate plain server.
I don't quite understand what an RPC is. I understand that it is essentially a function called over the network, but how do I use it?
I have to instantiate the object new prefab.. Whenever I look at a tutorial it tells me to do this: transform.position
What is transform.position, isn't it my position?
How do I connect to the server then have my position updated? How do I get other people's position?
My idea was in the update of NetworkManager I would call an RPC to move the player to new position if it's not the same as the old one?
Network.Instantiate (PlayerController, transform.position, transform.rotation, 0);
transform.position?
PlayerController is the FirstPersonController put into a prefab and renamed..
What do I need to make on the server part of it? The server is basically just a connection between all the clients, do I even need the RPC function on the server?
When someone connects, how do I get it so the server tells everyone that someone connects and how do I send that person who just connected the positions of all the new players?
void Update () {
Transform newPos = Network.player.transform;
if (oldPos != newPos)
networkView.RPC ("UpdatePosition", Network.player,
}
public void OnPlayerConnected(NetworkPlayer player){
Network.Instantiate (PlayerController, transform.position, transform.rotation, 0);
}
public void OnPlayerDisconnected(NetworkPlayer player){
Network.RemoveRPCs (player);
Network.DestroyPlayerObjects (player);
}
That is the client so far.. I need the UpdatePosition to update that single player's position on all screens..
Related
I am building a web app to display on my iPad to control my raspberry pi acting as an audio recorder. Part of the need is to maintain an event source open so that the server can send Server Side Events. A specific instance of the app can grab control of the recording process, but will loose control if the server sees sse link closes. This is just protection against a client disappearing and leaving the control held (control of the process does needed to be renewed at least every 5 minutes - but I don't really want to wait that long in the normal case of someone just closing the browser tab.)
Part of my need is to push the browser to the background so I can then open up the camera and record a video.
I built this app and had it almost working see https://github.com/akc42/pi_record.git (master branch).
Until I pushed the browser to the background and found IOS shut down the page and broke the sse link.
I tried restructuring to use a private web worker to manage the sse link, massing messages between the web worker and the main javascript thread - again almost working (see workers branch of above repository). But that got shutdown too!
My last thought is to use a service worker, but how to structure the app?
Clearly the service worker must act as a client to the server for the server side events. It must keep the connection open, but it also needs to keep track of multiple tabs in the browser which may or may not try and grab control of the interface, and only allow one tab to do so.
I can think of three approaches - but its difficult to see which is better. At least I have never even seen any mention of approach 2 and 3 below , but it seems to me that one of these two might actually be the simplest.
Approach 1
Move the code I have now for separate web workers into the service worker. However we will need to add to the message passing some form of ID between window and service. So I can record which tab actually grabbed control of the interface and therefore exclude other tabs from doing so (ie simulate a failed attempt to take control).
As far as I can work out MessageEvent.ports[0] could be a unique object which I could store in a Map somewhere, but I am not entirely convinced that the MessageChannel wouldn't close if the browser moved to the background.
Approach 2
have a set of phantom urls in the service worker that simulate all the different message types (and parameters) that where previously sent my the tab to its private web worker.
The fetch event provides a clientid (which I can use to difference between who actually grabbed control) and which I can use to then do Clients.get(clientid).postMessage() (or Clients.matchAll when a broadcast response is needed)
Code would be something like
self.addEventListener('fetch', (event) => {
const requestURL = new URL(event.request.url);
if (/^\/api\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
event.respondWith(fetch(event.request)); //all api requests are a direct pass through
} else if (/^\/service\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
/*
process these like a message passing with one extra to say the client is going away.
*/
if (urlRecognised) {
event.respondWith(new Response('OK', {status: 200}));
} else {
event.respondWith(new Response(`Unknown request ${requestURL.pathname}`, {status: 404}));
}
} else {
event.respondWith(async () => {
const cache = await caches.open('recorder');
const cachedResponse = await cache.match(event.request);
const networkResponsePromise = fetch(event.request);
event.waitUntil(async () => {
const networkResponse = await networkResponsePromise;
await cache.put(event.request, networkResponse.clone());
});
// Returned the cached response if we have one, otherwise return the network response.
return cachedResponse || networkResponsePromise;
});
}
});
The top of the the fetch event just passes the standard api requests made by the client straight through. I can't cache these (although I could be more sophisticated and perhaps pre reject those not supported).
The second section matches phantom urls /service/something
The last section is taken from Jake Archibald's offline cookbook and tries to use the cache, but updates the cache in the background if any of the static files have changed.
Approach 3
Similar to the approach above, in that we would have phantom urls and use the clientid as a unique marker, but actually try and simulate a server side event stream with one url.
I'm thinking the code with be more like
...
} else if (/^\/service\//.test(requestURL.pathname)) {
const stream = new TransformStream();
const writer = stream.writeable.getWriter();
event.respondWith(async () => {
const streamFinishedPromise = new Promise(async (resolve,reject) => {
event.waitUntil(async () => {
/* eventually close the link */
await streamFinishedPromise;
});
try {
while (true) writer.write(await nextMessageFromServerSideEventStream());
} catch(e) {
writer.close();
resolve();
}
});
return new Response(stream.readable,{status:200}) //probably need eventstream headers too
}
I am thinking that approach 2 could be the simplest, given where I am now but I am concerned that I can see nothing when searching for how to use service workers that discusses this phantom url approach.
Can anyone comment on any of these approaches and provide guidance on how to best program the tricky bits (for instance does Approach 1 message channel close when the browser is moved to the background on an iPad, or how do you really keep a response channel open, and does that get closed when the browser moves to the background in Approach 3)
The simple truth is that none of these approaches will work. What I didn't realise when I asked the question is that a service worker is re-run by the browser when ever there is something to do and that run only lasts for the length of time of the processing of an event. Although eventWaitUntil can prolong that, the only reference to how long I can find is that the browser is still at liberty to cancel it if it appears it might never close. I can't imagine than in a period of several hours it won't get cancelled. So an Event Source will close effectively terminate its link to the server.
So my only option to achieve what I want is to have the server carry on when the Event Source closes and find some other mechanism to release resources held on behalf of the client
The requirement in our project is, Web UI(MVC 5) will place a request to adapter(intermediate layer) which takes 3-4mins to process the request and computes response. This response needs to be pushed back to UI. We are planning to implement Signalr for posting back the response to UI. I did a small POC on SignalR to open connection and to call a method from javascript and get response back. how can I push the data from server to client(once connection is set), no call from javascript/Web for requesting the response?.
To push datas from the server to the client the basic usage is :
On the client side :
var myHub = $.connection.CustomHub;
myHub.client.myFunction= function (param) {
alert(param);
};
On the server side :
Clients.All.myFunction("parameter");
To find more infos about signalr take a look here :
http://www.asp.net/signalr/overview/getting-started/tutorial-getting-started-with-signalr
You can download the light chat project in the page it's a good start.
Get Hubcontext of the application
IHubContext hubContext = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext('HubName');
On top of hubcontext can broadcast message to all the clients or groups or to specific client based on connection Id
hubContext.Clients.Client(connectionId).JavaScript function(data)
There are running examples of SignalR, but in those, i have seen that the process is started by the client i.e. every piece of code contains following similar lines
$.connection.hub.start().done(function () {
$('#mybutton').click(function () {
notifier.server.doLongOperation();
});
});
The process on server starts on $('#mybutton').click and then responds.
Is my understanding correct? If yes then is it possible to start the process by Server? I mean Server will push messages to all clients without any triggering from the client side.
This didn't work
var context = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<Broadcast>();
context.Clients.All.Send(message);
My bad, method name on client side was incorrect. Problem solved
Yes it is possible to send server initiated "messages" from the server to clients. Note that you have to call a method on the client. Note that it's a RPC/Remoting type of communication.
On the server you'd have a code like this:
Clients.All.Say("Hello World!");
where the client needs to define a function:
myHub.client.say = function (message) {
console.log(message);
});
see the SignalR documentation
Consider the following to implement tic-tac-toe:
One player sends a move by triggering an event on the main dispatcher.
var dispatcher = new WebSocketRails('localhost:3000/websocket');
var channel = dispatcher.subscribe_private('private_game');
channel.bind('new_move', function(move) {
// received new move, process it
});
// later on when we want to send a move to the server we run the following code
var move = {
square: ...;
}
dispatcher.trigger('move', move);
On the server the controller can verify that the user is authorized for that specific game of tic-tac-toe. And then it can broadcast the move to both players.
class TicTacToeController < WebsocketRails::BaseController
def move
# code to verify the move is valid and save to database
...
# broadcast move to all players
WebsocketRails[:private_game].trigger(:new_move, message)
end
end
But there is nothing to enforce that the client sends messages only using the main dispatcher. The 'private_game' channel is suppose to be used only by the server for broadcasting moves. But a hostile client could send random data on it with
channel.trigger('new_move', randomdata);
Since channel events do not go through the Event Router and thus don't go through a Controller action, there is nothing on the server side to filter out the random spam.
Is there a way to stop random data spam on the server? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how to use websocket-rails?
One way you could handle this now before the Gem is updated to support this better would be to use a separate private channel for each user.
Example
Game Starts
User A connects to private channel named user_a_incoming_moves
User B connects to private channel named user_b_incoming_moves
When user B makes a move, you broadcast that on the user_a_incoming_moves private channel that only User A is connected to.
When user A makes a move, you broadcast that on the user_b_incoming_moves channel that only User B is connected to.
This would prevent anyone from being able to send malicious moves through.
You can read more about private channels in the Private Channel Wiki.
just to clarify certain questions.
Let's say I'm making a chat application. Most of the online tutorials are basic server-client programs that send the chat message directly as strings.
So what if there is someone that came online, or offline. How would the client notify the server of such changes? What I came up with is to use flags {online}User, {offline}user, {privatechat}blabla.
What if someone knew how your code and that would allow them to sabotage by keep sending {online}blabla.
This would work, but has some flaws that I could think of as well. What would be the correct or better way to do this?
Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks.
Or another example, in games. To tell the unit to move right, does it send a string back to the server {unit}{move right}? Something along those lines.
I kinda got the logic on how to make the chat server. If I just prefix a "{chat}" to the textbox. As long as I read this command "{chat}" I'll just ignore whichever commands which comes along.
How about in an RTS (not that I'm gonna make one, just curious), you mean there's literally 50 over strings telling how units move, attack, take damage, actions etc? Will all these commands be done on one thread? or multi-threaded?
Well you have to implement session-handling and send sessionToken with your order to move a unit in game. So server will be able to check whether pointed user have rights to order the pointed unit etc. Same things with chats.
In my chat, every client sends some PING message to server every two minutes. So if 5 minutes passed and no PING is received, server counts the user as [offline].
If you are afraid of cheating users who reverse engineer your client and can make serious troubles to the system with cheats, you have to do two things:
make server to check if given
user order is valid
implement bot-detection. check if
user makes some actions with some
constant time interval or if user
uses some limited amount of words in
chat etc.
I hope this post at least gives you some point.
The example of server logic is following:
[WebMethod]
string LoginUser(string login, string pwd)
{
if( dal.IsCorrectUser(login,pwd) )
{
string token = dal.MakeSession(login);
return string;
}
return "-1";
}
[WebMethod]
bool UserOrder(string token, string order)
{
if( !dal.SessionExist(token) )
{
return false;
}
int userId = dal.GetUserBySession(token);
if(! dal.ValidOrderForUser(userId,order) )
{
dal.RegisterWrongOrder(userid,order); // For cheaters-detecting purposes
return false;
}
return dal.ExecuteUserOrder(userId, order);
}
In fact you can send string or any serializable objects as an user-order.
[Serializable]
struct UserOrder
{
int unitId;
int Order;
}
All samples are for c#. Just to demonstrate logic.