Jump to content

Dragonji

Members
  • Posts

    530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

Posts posted by Dragonji

  1. Sounds weird, in my logic maxpackets should be somehow dynamic then, calculated on client side.

     

    A silly theory: I think (unstable) FPS connection with packets was never an issue with Jaymod. (I never had stable FPS in Jaymod but I was not lagging on full servers, regardless of maxpackets setting)

  2. Lag is often map-dependent. Fueldump and baserace are notorious for lag in the open areas. ET lags more when the server has to render more open map area. It has something to do with the size of the open area. I am not an expert on how maps are rendered, but I know big open maps lag more.

    I'm wondering if anything can be done about it? It's pretty damn annoying that maps like Supply or Bremen cause lags in players movement. It seems to happen only on maps where a lot of players from both teams (who shoot to each other of course) are concetrated on a small horizontally open (it doesn't matter if it's inside the building or outside) area though.
  3. So you postulate to add something that would cause the fops loose half or full of his charge bar (depending on the setting) when he only tries to call an arty and receives "Insufficient fire support" response?

    Half or full of the charge bar needed to call in an arty (that is a big difference) ;)

     

    That would prevent some players from standing in the same place for x seconds waiting with binocs aimed at the target and spamming +attack to just call in an arty before anybody else notices it is already possible.

  4. I remember it was requested in some topic but I couldn't find it so I just open a new one.

     

    Would be nice if it was possible to limit artillery callers spam, I mean to have options similar to g_weapons 8 (Fully restore Field Ops charge bar if airstrike is aborted) and 16 (Half restore Field Ops charge bar if airstrike is aborted) flags. So there are options to half or fully waste the amount of the player chargebar needed to call in an artillery when "Insufficient fire support" occurs.

  5. Wrong. Read your own silent documentation here: http://mygamingtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Silent_Mod_Server_Cvar#g_realHead

    Read this once again...

    Change log:

    • 0.5.1 - The option was removed. The ETPro headboxes are always used.

     

    Also the hitboxes are definitely not etpro, after playing etpro for several years I can promise you they are not the same.

    They are, in size. Just run both mods in debug hitboxes mode and you will notice that as well.

  6. How about getting some option between vanilla and realbody hitboxes?

     

    What I'm thinking about is something like this:

    http://obrazki.elektroda.pl/9863735000_1368266180.png

     

    So the size of the body is almost the same as it used to be by default with only one difference: the top of the bodybox ends at the playermodel shoulders instead of top of the head.

  7. That is not how it works.

    Could you tell a lil' bit more? This is a really interesting subject in my eyes.

     

    Also, there is no such setting as g_realHead. ETPro headboxes are always used.

    It is present in default silent.cfg packed with silEnT 0.6.3 though.
  8. The current default hitboxes use an extra and useless (in my opinion) entity. I think it might help large servers getting less resources load if every single player didn't have an extra hitbox entity which is used only for prone anyway.

     

    Some screenies I took on hitbox debug mode:

     

    silEnT:

     

    http://obrazki.elektroda.net/80_1343128582.png

    (the green square, that's the entity I think is useless)

     

    ETPro 3.2.6:

    http://obrazki.elektroda.pl/3008012900_1368028727.png

    (stand)

     

    http://obrazki.elektroda.pl/7439379200_1368028728.png

    (crouch)

     

    http://obrazki.elektroda.pl/2056486200_1368028729.png

    (prone)

     

    As you can see, in ETPro an extra box entity is added only to the prone animation, though I don't know which solution is better (current silEnT's one or ETPro's) when talking about performance, I just wanted to bring this interesting subject to the forums, I hope you guys (developers) know better than me which one is better ;).

  9. Wouldn't it be better if server was sending info packet about rename and the whole thing would be exec'ed on client side so server doesn't have to manipulate userinfo?
×
×
  • Create New...