Ah, using a pre-made game engine will certainly make creating a game easier. If creating a game asap is your goal, that is definitely a good option.

{"name":"hrzfab.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/3540e6c4f5c1d2cc998e46257e43e30f.gif","w":275,"h":210,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/3540e6c4f5c1d2cc998e46257e43e30f"}

I wouldn't want your condescending derogatory help either.

So your definition of help is :
1) Insult someone and say they don't understand what they're talking about
2) When they try to come up with a solution of their own, make sure they feel stupid about it

I remember the math library thread quite well thank you. You said I didn't understand how floating point values worked, but I understood it quite well. When I proposed a perfectly valid solution, you called it naive.

Just how is it that you actually help anyone here anyway?

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I admit that I was being an unpleasant ass. I also accept your criticism of my behaviour, and I agree that a consequence is that I've not been particularly helpful.

However, what is not acceptable is to start making totally illogical arguments, especially when they fly in the face of accepted literature on the subject. If you do this, then you make yourself an easy target.

If we're all completely honest on what's going on here then it's probably something along these lines:

David has had a good first stab at client-server synchronisation, but is struggling a bit because, if we're honest, it's not an easy problem.

I'd had a bad day, and, partly because I've been working on this problem for the past 2 years and now have my own client-server game working smoothly, and partly because I can be an arrogant prick at times, I was rude in my first post.

David got offended, quite rightly, but then made the error of criticising the information I was providing rather than my attitude. Illustrating a lack of understanding on the subject.

I was offended by this, and so said some unpleasant things.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I'm completely unapologetic about the information that I have provided, and I still claim that he will fail to make something that is playable over the internet unless he fully understand what those articles are talking about.

However, I do apologise for my condescension, arrogance and unpleasantness.

Obviously, James Lohr was correct, but it is pointless to tell others negative comments. We don't know everything, and, at one point in our lives, we were just as knowledgeable as the OP is.