Why about setting Multiworld Frequency to 1 for all games ?

[Artighel]

I recently played a game with the MWF param set to 1, it was a 3 vs 3 games and it played very very smooth with no warp at all. I've rarely seen such so good playing conditions in a strat game.

For final v1.3 release, what about setting the MWF default value to 1 for all games ? It would eliminate all these warping problems (BZ2 is one of the only net game to have warping issues, it's too bad).
In any case, actual MWF default values (4 for DeathMatch, 10 for MPI/Strat) seem to be far too high - thus reducing playing conditions.
I believe most players computer (at least 1Ghz + GForce3) are now enough powerfull too handle little MWF values.

And now concerning players who put too high graphic setting and thus increasing lag during multiplayer games (those guy who fall below average 25 fps) : what about displaying a blink message on their screen during the game "You put too much load on your graphic card, reduce graphic options - it caused lag and connection slowdowns for everyone in the game".

[Speedy]

1.3 automatically adjusts your graphics settings if it dips too low. Just turn the 'ShowFramerateTweaks = false // set to true to debug' option to true in your gameprefs.ini file so you can see what its doing. It does it anyways but this way you get a text message in your chat screen. And it works very, very well.

Mwf should default at 2 for all strat maps, 1 for deathmatches, 4 for mpi.

[OvermindDL1]

Because it work quite well on fast broadband, but it would kill a modem connection in no time flat, it has to appeal to all speeds, not just broadbanders.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

I aggree with overmind on this one.

Perhaps having '10' (or mabey 5?) as the default for a game that inculdes someone who does not have broadband. and '2' as the default if the server detects everyone having broadband.

[DarkFox]

I don't agree with overmind. I've been told by a very reliable source that MWF is a LOCAL setting. I hate repeating that so much, but I have to. It is LOCAL, same as high graphics details - modem players wouldn't be killed by it any more than BB players, it's all about how fast your computer is.

[Avatar]

Ah, but like 'other' attributes most gamers overestimate their systems buffness.

Buffosity?

Whatever...  Most people feel their system can handle anything when in fact they don't have reliable tools to show it struggling in late-game.

It's a server option.  Just set it based on your own experiences.  The default setting is for the mid to low-end systems.

-Av-

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

ok, but 10 seems to be a relic from the 1.2 days. How about a default of 5?

[Tempest Storm]

Why does it matter? You can change with the utmost simplicity...are you guys really all that lazy?

[Element]

Because it work quite well on fast broadband, but it would kill a modem connection in no time flat, it has to appeal to all speeds, not just broadbanders.

I was in that game Artighel is describing. Extremely smooth and im on 56k .

[deadscion]

Chaulk it up to experience and leave the defaults where they are. Like TS said stop being lazy.

Besides a default is just that, a starting place never meant to please everyone which is impossible anyway.

If MWF setting of 1 works well for you, great use it.

[GJC]

If you reduce the default you encourage people to use lower settings. Only a minority of players reads the boards regularly and there are lots of urban legends floating around about MWF.

My guess is that high graphics settings hamper FPS and induce lag much more than a low MWF setting. Especially those on the server. Of course a server should always have broadband connection when using low MWF.

[OvermindDL1]

That frequency is the rate at which it attempts to sync the multiworld (the multiplayer connection) with the singleworld (the local connection).  Single world by default updates every 1/10 of a second, I believe the multiworld frequency is a multiplier on that, so it syncs the multiworld (the actual multiplayer world) with the single world (what you see on screen) but it can necessitate a very large amount of data transfer (across the local machine).  If the multiworld and singleworld are at the same rate (MWF set to 1 I would think) it attempts to use all incoming data, and I could easily see it sending more data.  So I guess another thing would be that you would have to have a computer to support it as well.

[DarkFox]

Overmind - having the network world sync to the visual world 10 times a second doesn't make the network traffic change at all. It simply changes the rate on the local computer at which the visual world is synchronised with what is *really* going on.

I don't understand what makes you think this would increase network traffic.

[GJC]

Of course I dont know how the netcode works in detail. But I believe that every single player´s world is "updated" with itself for every single frame.

MWF 1 means that the player´s worlds are updated with the servers world ten times per second. True, the lower the MWF setting the more often the update process takes cpu time. But, as the intervals between two lock steps also become shorter, less events are going to happen during them, hence less information has to be dispatched at each lock step. Only the lockstep overhead will multiply. Maybe, or maybe not ... Just a thought.

[OvermindDL1]

It doesn't increase the network traffic, but it causes additional processing on the part of the CPU (a great deal infact) which can cause it to miss updates.

EDIT:  And the single player's world is updated every tenth of a second, the only thing that is performed each frame is moving and physics calulcations.  The AI, your controls, all commands, everything like that is done on the 1/10 second mark.  That is why there is a split second after you press your control that it actually responds, and a split second after you let go before it stops.