Is it possible that, when one is hosting and he/she has to leave, that he/she can transfer the server to someone else who is playing as a client so that the sim can continue?

Or can SimSig be hosted on a "common server" unattended...

I think the main problem with hosting a game on an unattended server is that the host/server is the only one who can change F3 options, see the train list, change F11 options, edit the timetable etc etc. So if there were any problems, no-one would be able to do anything. You could run a game, then get people to connect using Remote Desktop; then everyone would have access to everything, but would leave the game open to abuse. And there would only be one mouse cursor available!

As far as transferring the game goes, all you need to do is save the game, send the .ssg to a new host and restart the game. Everyone would need to reconnect, but I don't think there's any way of getting round that, unless someone has any other ideas?

wain77 wrote:
Host the game on one machine, and just the "active" host connects in with remote desktop, when another host takes over they swap.

Well I have another idea:

As not all of us know setting routers, or sometimes it is impossible to set routers or get an external IP. It would be a good idea to have an online server that the host connects to it by a identifier, then clients also connect to the server by the same identifier to set up a multiplay session.

If this method is adapted, setting up multiplay session and transferring host could be simpler.

Who is offering to implement and run this server? Yes, it's a practical proposition, but someone needs to do it. Don't look at me.

Isn't simsig.co.uk a server?
The problem is that SimSig core will need to be rewritten, or we need some ways to hack the communicayion protocal.

Actually, that's just one of the challenges.....

1) As you rightly point out, the networking code would need to alter drastically so a core code re-write would be needed.
2) Then all the sims would have to be re-built to that latest core code before they are compatible, with the new system.
3) Someone would need to write the server code and be responsible for its maintenance.
4) The server code needs to be hosted on a server, and that server will require maintenance (and, of course, need paying for).

Then there are more technical aspects such as...
1) How do you then deal with LAN games where you don't have access to the internet (such as at a meet)?
2) How do you deal with chaining multiple sims?
3) What happens if the redirection server is down?

Don't get me wrong, its a decent idea. Its actually something I personally have thought about several times (mainly in relation to people who can't attend a meet but want to be able to join whatever game the meet may be hosting). However, its not as simple and straight forward as it seems....(though feel free to prove me wrong!!)

alvinhochun wrote:
Most router these days have uPnP so adding this to the core code could help with people having router setup problems as the port would be automatically opened by the software

Actually, having a new approach doesn't mean that we have to abandon the old one... (two connection methods can exist together)

For chaining, it's just the same principle but we use the identifier instead of IP address to connect the slave sim to the main sim.

Of course we need someone to maintain the server code and for the official SimSig team to accept this.

If we think in a simpler way, it's just reversing the direction of connection for the sim host. Instead of TCP Server, it establish a TCP client and connects to the "server". The job of the "server" is to redirect all data from sim clients to the sim server... (like a proxy?)

How often would this likely be used?

The reason for asking this that I suspect not very often, and as such, I personally believe that it would be a disproportionate use of the time of Geoff and Clive making the necessary alterations to the core code, for negligible gain.

The vast majority of times there is a "change of host" it generally occurs before a single train is signalled as a result of the initial intending host having difficulty with Port Forwarding, and one of the intending players offering to step in. I can count one one finger the number of times I have been involved in a multiplayer game where the host has been changed in the middle for non-networking reasons.