Ns 2.0 More System Intensive Than 1.04?
Grim_Reaper
Join Date: 2003-07-29 Member: 18545Members
Join Date: 2003-07-29 Member: 18545Members
Will 2.0 be more system intensive? I'm running NS at 1152x864x32 and my frames vary from 20-75fps ingame. In large battles I can get down to around 15-25 fps. I'm running a P3 547.1mhz Dual Xeon, 1024MB DDR SDRAM, GeForce3 Ti200 64MB. Also, does anyone know how to check your ingame refresh rate and how to see and set how much memory NS uses? Thanks.
Comments
net_graph 2
net_graph 3
showfps
ns 1.x had some memory leaks here and there, like blue dots on the minimap that dont disapear, and other stuff making the server slower the longer a round/map takes.
2.0 ns specific entities (join and start positions) no longer count to the entity limit. thats 100 (1/4) less entities per map.
On the other hand turrets only cost 5 res and are meant to be a stronger defense (unless a gorge horde bileboms them) so there can be huge turret farms.
aliens will think twice if they build walls of lame or just go fade/onos early, D-first is less essential, less structures here.
Entity handling has been dramatically revised in NS 2.0 using something called ent caching, as well as other server and map ent optimizations. It boils down to about an 80-95% reduction in processor utilization on the server. In client terms, it runs basically like it always did, but you will have a much smoother game due to the improved server performance leading to less 'lag' (another missused and misunderstood term that I won't bore people with redefining).
So, errr, what were we talking about? Oh yeah! It will run better <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think it might be the lights from turrets/phases.
and the other command is cl_showfps 1 :\
I think it might be the lights from turrets/phases. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
doesnt 2.0 have a special variable to disable flickering lights like the phasegates ones.
try- gl_playermip "2" if its really the lights calculation on the models. but its nearly a cheat.
I believe it is r_dynamic 0
Please dont bother asking around for it.
MonsE, a question. Is the actual lag the same as ping time? Like can a person have 100 ping on one server, and have alot more lag than another server they get 100 ping with?
In large battles I can get down to around 15-25 fps. I'm running a P3 547.1mhz Dual Xeon, 1024MB DDR SDRAM, GeForce3 Ti200 64MB<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow....with such specs....you actually drop down to 15-25fps!!
hard to believe.....
That's the tricky bit! You see, when you look at the HL scoreboard and see 'latency' (i.e. 'lag'), you are seeing a combination of factors, not just raw MS round trip times from ICMP like people think. If I recall, it actually DID once mean ping times, but it has been revised over time to mean the general 'quality' of your connection.
For example, in NS 1.0.4, I would often connect to some servers I know full well were very close (aka Univeristy servers that are only a couple miles away, that have only a couple hops in a tracert, etc.). And if I were the only player on the server, my latency would be something like 50 and respond in 10ms from straight ICMP 'pings'. However, as soon as say 10 players joined, my latency would go to 500 and my gameplay would start getting out of contriol jerky and slideshowed. If I kept pinging during this time, I would still see sub-10MS round trip times. However, why was my conection so wrecked?
Because server CPU is one of those factors added into 'latency' i.e. 'lag'. The server takes longer and longer to process actions, resulting in a general slowdown. in 2.0, this is all but eradicated due to much improved workaround code that Flayra came up with.
So - using your scoreboard to see how good your connection is rather a relative term. I told you this was boring...
Now looks like I have to tweak my PC till NS 2.0 <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> lucky I got a 2.4 gHz P4 so maybe I'll think pf hosting a temp server....maybe not <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
That's the tricky bit! You see, when you look at the HL scoreboard and see 'latency' (i.e. 'lag'), you are seeing a combination of factors, not just raw MS round trip times from ICMP like people think. If I recall, it actually DID once mean ping times, but it has been revised over time to mean the general 'quality' of your connection.
For example, in NS 1.0.4, I would often connect to some servers I know full well were very close (aka Univeristy servers that are only a couple miles away, that have only a couple hops in a tracert, etc.). And if I were the only player on the server, my latency would be something like 50 and respond in 10ms from straight ICMP 'pings'. However, as soon as say 10 players joined, my latency would go to 500 and my gameplay would start getting out of contriol jerky and slideshowed. If I kept pinging during this time, I would still see sub-10MS round trip times. However, why was my conection so wrecked?
Because server CPU is one of those factors added into 'latency' i.e. 'lag'. The server takes longer and longer to process actions, resulting in a general slowdown. in 2.0, this is all but eradicated due to much improved workaround code that Flayra came up with.
So - using your scoreboard to see how good your connection is rather a relative term. I told you this was boring... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't find it boring. Computers always have and always will be great to learn about, at least for me.
In large battles I can get down to around 15-25 fps. I'm running a P3 547.1mhz Dual Xeon, 1024MB DDR SDRAM, GeForce3 Ti200 64MB<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow....with such specs....you actually drop down to 15-25fps!!
hard to believe..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I pray to Allah/Buddha/God that you are joking. My bottleneck makes my GF3 run like a GF1-GF2. Plus, at that high of a resolution and 32bit on an aging engine it's expected. But this happens when there's like 4-7 marines and a few aliens flying around on the screen at once. Otherwise, performance is usually around 30-35fps in battles.
With that sort of fps, i recommend you bring your resolution down to 1024. Also 16 bits looks absolutely fine, and that should increase your fps as well. If you have vsync on, make sure to set your fps_max to 100 (which will default to max) and make sure you set your refresh rate to the highest your monitor will handle at that resolution.
What is more important on server's nowadays isn't so much the connection, as the amount of RAM you have. If you get enough RAM on a NS 1.04 server right now, with a good connection, you can still have a really good time. However, I'm talking like near 2 gigs of RAM, maybe even more.
Too many server entities hog RAM. Because it hogs RAM, that means less RAM can be used to send information to the various clients connecting to the server. When the server struggles to to send info, everyone's pings suffer in terms of how much info is being sent.
Another myth I'd like to get out into the open right now and shoot is this:
56K'ers do NOT make servers lag. It is the oppisite, broadband users do. The reasoning being is this:
Because broadband users take up more bandwidth, and the frequency of info that must be sent to a broadband user is more frequent, it in turn takes up more RAM... get the picture? More RAM being taken up = more lag. A 1.04 server with nothing but pure 56K'ers connected to it would actually get a much more steady ping than if broadband users connect. Broadband users actually take up just as much server RAM as several 56K users.
It's so much about the RAM usage, now that NS 2.0 has less entities, this means more RAM for the players which means less lag for everyone. If Flay did indeed make a near 100% decrease in the amount of entities used at any given time, then this is truely a blessing from the gods, pings should be dropping down to CS/FA/TFC/DoD levels now. Amen.
If anyone wonders how I know all of this useless crap, then I will gladly show you the netcode code posted in the FA forums.
On the other hand, the caveat to the 56ker myth is that 56kers lag (themselves). This can be exceptionally annoying, and create the illusion the server is lagging, especially in mods such as Vampire Slayer. However, yes, 56kers do not themselves lag the server, just themselves (and become annoying).
Processor
Simple,if you run on 700 mHz then you would still lag,because the CPU loads up less than 1.0 gHz
Having a 4.0 gHz machine on the other hand would boost performance greatly,but I've never heard of a 4.0 gHz processor as of yet :/
And as for the lag issues....I just need to know who has more packet loss,the broadband users or the 56kers?
So just to confirm, the 500 latency you had would be a 500 ping shown on the scoreboard right? If so, is it possible to have 50 ping shown on the scoreboard, yet still have choppy slideshow gameplay, due to fault of the server(not fault of the client's framerate capabilities?
See what I'm trying to figure out, is whether low FPS in some parts of NS is the fault of my CPU(assuming I get good FPS normally, and connect to low "ping" servers), or the fault of the server being too laggy?(and whether my FPS would get better in NS2.0 as a result of less server lag) For example, I was comming this one game and my FPS was ok, but near the end of the game everything was really slow and choppy. I'm assuming it's because of all the structures on the map near the end.
I know it's been said here that client framerates will improve because of less server lag, but that leads us back to the point of my query: Can the server still be screwing me over if the scoreboard(measuring several factors, not just standard ping) says I'm ~150 in ping? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If the server is screwing me over, I'm in for a treat with NS 2.0. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So - using your scoreboard to see how good your connection is rather a relative term. I told you this was boring...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes tech stuff is boring, but it really depends on what mood I am in. This is too short and simple to ever be boring though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I pray to Allah/Buddha/God that you are joking. My bottleneck makes my GF3 run like a GF1-GF2. Plus, at that high of a resolution and 32bit on an aging engine it's expected. But this happens when there's like 4-7 marines and a few aliens flying around on the screen at once. Otherwise, performance is usually around 30-35fps in battles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One possibility is the engine, Half-life doesn't take proper advantage of highpower video cards, and relies hardcore on CPU performance. That, and HL does seem to be a bit of a rickety engine. Like I'm wondering if 8 players on screen at once in Quake 3, would cause the same bad framerates as in Half-life.
The other possibility is user tech skills. I can't offer you any advice, but it seems to be the only way to explain people with powerful systems getting outperformed by signficantly slower systems.
A high game latency, however, is -mostly- related to 1) your bandwidth and line latency, 2) the server's OMPFness (i love that word), and 3) the geographical location of the server (how far away it is from you, mostly in term of routers and gateways between you and the server).
A low FPS will result in a choppy game and it will get hard to aim and see what's going on. If it runs smoother when you turn towards the wall or some other low-polygon area (and see nothing but the wall), you're suffering from a low FPS.
A high game latency is a bit harder to spot, but results in misses when shooting (although you may have no problem aiming and tracking your target), brief "teleports" a couple of meters away from where you were, you're suddenly facing the -other- way without moving your mouse, or (when it gets really bad) you hang mid-air, trying to run, and the world around you seems to be still for a moment while you hold down W but only bounce up and down.
A low FPS has nothing to do with high game latency. A high game latency -may- be related to your machine, which also determines your FPS.
Were I rambling or was this understandable? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Changing resolution or colour depth is unlikely to do much. Those things help a lot when graphics card memory quantity or memory bandwidth are the bottleneck. When the video card is much more powerful than other parts of the system, that's rarely an important factor.
The main difference in 16-bit mode is the appearance of banding, and perhaps some transparent stuff that looks worse. There may also be more z-fighting in some situations on some video cards. Those are mainly problems for games that have big, smooth gradients and long viewing distances (as in outdoor combat, flight sims would be a good example) and are unlikely to be too distracting in NS.
Thats all I have to say about getting better FPS.
I have a GF4 ti 4600 and I was getting 30-60 Fps average
Boom turned off V-sync and now I am maxed out at 100 and never drop below 60 (intense Turret Farms might make me drop to 30, but I'm taking Server crashing style).
I forget who it was who wrote that AWESOME guide about getting better V-Sync... anyone remember <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->