"criticism" received on 360 avatars record interacting on the same domain


HF wise, the 360 can be seen as a provable, public witnessed, metric for amount of users being able to be on a single instance but not fully objective one as there are too many unknowns and was most likely unable be objectively proven by talking to absolutely everyone in the crowd to prove them as individuals because there are just too many.
It shouldn’t be total concurrency you compare, instead it should be how many you can have in a single instance or local concurrency.

Total Concurrency wise, High Fidelity is laughably tiny but skewed as only some use steam clients, and of those a fraction have steam friends enabled: So hard to get proper concurrencies for everything without someone redoing that concurrency app made a while back, which unfortunately does not differenciate between users and assignment clients.

We barely keep around 5 people online at any hour outside of events, sometimes none. Some would consider it Dead; but thats how it has been for years. These blips in usage when we peak at hundreds is when we cram them all into a single instance.

Regardless the details are fuzzy and its hard to compare to anything else as there is nothing else to compare to.

Closest Analogue would be SL, but they dont stream animation data, that is just voice based, and they can hit 60s stable according to their metrics (100 max), with events located in-between four regions, setting it to 60 x 4: But that wouldn’t be on a single audio mega server, and you’d have scaling issues and voice communication latency issues between the ‘regions’ as everything scaled.

MMOs tend to heavily use to instancing; so even a single server, a single area can have many instances. You don’t need to look any further than WoW for example or even OrbusVR, which would be closest to Hifi, interms of context and population (VR MMO). So its hard to say, but generally those hundred thousand or millions players, tend to be separated into many, many instances.

MMOs also don’t tend to include audio servers, because they know Gamers will use external software, so they save dev time by just focusing on more important things to them. VR might make it a must, but you still will end up people using mumble or discord for Games. This allows the Provider to save money on bandwidth, as game data tends to be a lot more lighter to transmit back and forth than audio packets. It would also requires a separate networking team that specializes in audio streaming.

Collectively every time you mention In-game Voice chat to dedicated gamers, they will groan and most likely just mute it as soon as possible, because of no quality control on mics, toxic players, and overall feeling that a whitelist approach to voice chat is better. Even I agree with this, whenever I play any Game.

SocialVR is different from the MMO Games genre, but it is relatively unexplored territorry. Second life might be the prelude to it: VRChat is the most popular one.


Anybody who has ever experienced the big hassle of getting his guild on the same server for a MMO raid („Can you invite me?“, „Why can‘t I log on?“, „We‘re still missing our tank!“, „This server seems to be crowded, let‘s choose another one!“, „Did everybody hear this?“, „Why is Teamspeak down now too?“) will cherish HiFi‘s amazing effort to get hundreds of people together into one shared virtual space - at the same time & with spatial audio :purple_heart: :two_women_holding_hands: :couple: :two_men_holding_hands: :sunglasses:


Sansar have that problem to. And in elite dangerous soemtimes things go strange to. Wing member is seeing you and i not see him.

Hate instances !



i have a virtual world no ones seen that can have 10 billion concurrent


For what I have read it match more to the description of a MMO game…
and not even a very original one…
It looks a lot like this one: https://www.entropiauniverse.com
(that is at least existing since 2003)
mining, crafting, in-world economy.

So if we were really looking after such a world model… we would have chosen it since at least 15 years ago. This is clearly what we are not doing, for very good reasons.


Dual Universe

Scope is fantastic, but … Its a game thats still not open to play, and requires one to put in 180e to just test in prealpha… but honestly, I cant consider it a metaverse when it is centralized into a game servers and relying on game assets to build the user generated content out of. Nor does it have any focus into supporting VR devices. nor be what ever you want to be.

The Tech demo demonstrates “players” but those are just bots that have set walking direction, or just local clients running on the same machine or network.

Infact the article points this out

A lot that Will Burns is saying is debatable – for one thing, I’m not sure High Fidelity’s concurrency load test can be fairly compared with the Dual Universe test: The former involved 350+ human-controlled avatars in a small space (say 75 square yards), while the latter involved 1200 computer-controlled avatars in a large-ish space

I am not very impressed honestly, I could probably replicate a similar looking tech demo for concurrency with Unity in a few months running few thousand local clients, but have it fail miserably during actual user based load testing.

They honestly sound equally BS to what High Fidelity occasionally does spout out. So everyone must be shovelling shit equally.

I mean, large concurrencies are what MMOs would do in the first place.

But Again, Dual Universe is not designed for VR HMDs: nor does the tech demo demostrate that all those avatars are talking in voice. So instead its probably going to be restricted to a subscription based “bonus”.

The Local Comparison for Concurrency again should be against Eve, WoW or even Guild Wars 2… In which case Dual Universe’s concurrency is just not very impressive, it is the norm.

also That stuff talked in the video?

Same tech is behind Entities and Avatars in High Fidelity, and basically stuff that occurs in any MMO (look up octree).

it’s the shallow end of the kiddie pool by comparison to Dual Universe or even No Man’s Sky.

Why is No Man Sky in this comparison? I am not really sure If I can take him seriously, even being one of the authors of the definition, but especially after such a inflamitory comparison (shallow end of the kiddie pool) on pretty much all the other metaverses out there, while both No Man Sky AND Dual universe wouldnt meet that definition either.

Because Minecraft can handle waaay more players (in 2011, 2622 Users) than No man Sky in multiplayer instance (which is max 16 or 4 wings of 4).


Compare apple with Banana. We know the are nit the same.

And i bet that that platform does not support VR, spatial audio and realtime handling if objects in VR. Also high fidelity can handle more avatars in the future with resource sharing.

Need to see it first before i believe it. Same as that i do not understand why people pay the price kf RL house for tiny piece virtual land that not exist.


Having played myself many weeks with No Man’s Sky since the launch in 2016, I must admit that No Man’s sky started with actual NO multiuser facilities (even if they promised it in the launch, and this was the very big problem why it received very harsh criticism from their fan), and only recently can guarantee with a lot of difficulties a concurrency of only a bunch of users…
See https://nomanssky.gamepedia.com/Multiplayer
and in particular

No Man’s Sky can currently be played by multiple people together in parties of 2 to 4 players. Up to 16 players can be in the same instance of a star system, however, players not in the same party will see each other as glowing orbs.

So this is probably a mistake in the original interview, or otherwise they have a pretty peculiar concept of Multiplayer in mind.


So this is probably a mistake in the original interview, or otherwise they have a pretty peculiar concept of Multiplayer in mind.

Which is kinda funny since that is recent interview as it was talking about the recent 350+ concurrency high fidelity managed to squeeze in. It it definitely would be a mistake for comparison.

I mean if we use William Burns metaverse definition he made, Both Dual universe and No Man Sky still wouldn’t meet it. Because they are just a single centralized server cluster, with a perceived interconnectiveness that basically is faked, and have no other user Generated content aside from restricted, developer defined asset based construction…

Because if those were, then, Star Wars Galaxies was a Metaverse way before every other one out now.

I dont know where he pulled stuff up, or then the author of the article is misquoting him.


The one thing to also consider is that, from what I’ve been reading, is that the Dual Universe comparison is missing one critical thing: user density. This may sound like a mute point, but remember that if you spread out information, it is often times easier to process. If I stand in a 100mx100m room, will I see all the details from one corner of the room to the other? Most unlikely, and many gaming optimizations take advantage of this, both at a rendering level and on a server level. This is where Eve Onlnes shines, because it can handle the density being loose or dense. In a case like High Fidelity, having all 350+ users in a small area is a bit more impressive than if I recreated the solar system and put the same number on each planet, spaced out. At that point, I wouldn’t need to tell you about the other people until they were obviously in visual range.

The other thing to consider is the old High Fidelity roadmap, which talked about servers within servers, or basically that one person could, in theory, have an apartment room that is fully handled by a smaller server, which connects and authorizes with a larger one, being the apartment building, which in turn could do the same with a larger scope. In theory, this would mean some interesting optimizations, like having the servers talk to each other regarding simplified audio channels, saving bandwidth for everyone involved (upstair neighbors audio being sent to the current room server for mixing for everyone inside) or even utilization of the voxel octree.

In theory, handling a million players is easy. Handling a million players in the same area where all million can see eachother? That’s a real challenge.


So after all these debate (which is particularly interesting, and made me discover some MMO which I didn’t know) I also found some “official records” on http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search/applicationrecordsearch?term=most+concurrent+users+at+the+same+location&contentType=record

Trying to aggregate them up (which it seems something almost impossible since they are fuzzy and difficult to relate together as many of the commenter stated) it seems that we have the following “Hall of Fame” with some numbers:

1. 6142 SpaceShips fighting each other in EVE On Line (Siege of 9-4R)

On 23 January 2018, a total of 6,142 players converged to take part in EVE Online's (CCP Games, 2003) Siege of 9-4R battle (designated the name 9-4RP2 by the game's developer). As verified by CCP Games, this was 805 players more than took part in the battle of M-OEE8 that had 5,337 concurrent players and the most concurrent players to be simultaneously involved in a single multiplayer PvP battle in a videogame as of 21 March 2018. EVE Online is a space-based MMORPG in which thousands of players build ships, trade and, when the situation merits, go to war. It's particularly known for events such as the Siege of 9-4R where its legions of players get together in the same time and at the same place to take part in huge battles. Despite having the most concurrent players assemble in one place, the Siege of 9-4R didn't actually turn into a huge battle in terms of munitions fired and damage done. The game's servers were put under such pressure by so many players being in one place that the game started to suffer from lag that effectively ended the battle early.

2. 2622 Avatars in Minecraft on a single server

Minecraft isn't really designed for supporting hundreds of players in a world at once, so when the popular YouTube Minecraft-specializing channel Yogscast squeezed 2,622 players together on 1 August 2011, it was hardly playable. But they were all together nonetheless.

And probably there are many others in between and before HF 360 number. To be sure, as discussed, HF should be rewarded having much more complexities which EVE or Minecraft do not have, including but not limited to:

  • dynamic user content to be loaded into each client (in particular avatar shapes in the case discussed),
  • spatial sound
  • many movements to be tracked

But what it counts for non technical people is the marketing use of “record” word which is just a psychological and often subjective thing. The guinness web site adds in these cases the following alert:

This record has been sourced from expert consultants and institutions and we do not invite proactive applications. If you want to speak to us about this record, please contact us.

So to be really recorded in the guinness even with the previous disclaimer I’m afraid that HF should at least have more than 2622 real concurrent avatars.

The first time in July I attended we were around 180, in August 256 (+ 42%), in september 356 (+ 39%), so if the 40% trend will be kept in the next month we can forecast to have the following

October 498
November 697
December 976
January 1366
February 1913
March 2678

I doubt that HF will keep in maintaining the 40% figure for 6 months in a row (and that the servers set up by their technicians can handle the traffic), however I think that if HF can register ~1000 colocated concurrency that would be really impressive to me (350 is very good and much better than secondlife, but according to some statistics in SecondLife they managed to keep together 4 sim and have a stage in their center, so accomodating up to 400 avatars in the same space, so the real record compared to SecondLife would be to be more than 400, and this last target we are probably certain to be obtained in October.

What should be important would be that HF (or Sansar or others) would reach a general average concurrency on all their domains/servers of at least 1000. Current concurrency in this precise moment is 9 in HighFidelity, and 7 in Sansar, which is not that much…


This was later beaten by Battle of B-R5RB that is recent, where player counts went to 7500.

The Minecraft one is something i also mentioned.


thinks the tricky bit is finding enough people
if u cant lure people in with the offer of money then what are we doing wrong


Sorry for the imprecision, the source was the Guinness World Record which only reported the 6142 record. probably the website was not particularly interested in this kind of concurrency (the minecraft was also quite hidden). Much debate has been also been posted on the original post in NWN (please read the comments they are almost all not so positive on the biased opinions expressed by the post itself) including Philip Rosedale: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2018/09/dual-universe-1200-concurrency-simulation.html,
while recently there had been the official blog from HF, https://blog.highfidelity.com/356-avatars-together-ea8546e86279. It seems that it will be ok for HF to reach a max number of 500 on a domain, as I suggested in my previous post. Basing this on economical considerations: HF would guarantee that a meeting with 500 people would be much cheaper than organizing the same with conventional computing requiring much more computers and money. I remember I read on the blogs that the meeting with 256 people did cost something around $150 which is not that bad.


This has been a great thread and discussion, as is the New World Notes article.

There is something magical about contiguous big shared spaces!