Fixed via gameprefs.ini modifications. Still needs more testing, report any changes for better/worse.
Extract to bzroot (http://www.spike.http.co.il/uploads/up/A001239.7z)
The above is a 7zip file, if you dont have an extractor for .7z files you can get the official version here (http://www.7-zip.org/)
And yes, 7zip is free
You should probably make a "Stock" gameprefs.ini and modify THAT with the appropriate settings. Yours was modified with other things moved around as well.
Yes, I know. Don't have a stock gameprefs.ini and don't know exactly what was changed to make it work. If you find out either of these things tell me and ill start to try it out. Feel free to contact me on msn with it.
Why not just tell us what you changed. I rather edit the file myself than use someone else's gamepref.ini.
I believe the following summarizes the smoothening variable changes. The commented out set of numbers are the default values for the given setting.
Quote
// Range for a percentage of a craft's normal forward velocity it may
// be smoothed by when multiworld is on. This value should be between
// 0.0 and 5.0, where 1.0 means that the craft is allowed to travel up
// to 100% of its forward velocity per frame.
//
// Setting the min down to 0 is not recommended, as craft rotating in
// place w/o any position changes won't have their changes shown until
// it moves.
//
// Setting the max number higher will be slightly more jumpy, while
// lower numbers will tend to induce warp if remote players maneuver
// really quickly.
MinMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 5.0 // 0.5
MaxMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 5.0 // 1.5
// Some other clamps on the smoothing code ranges. These are in absolute
// dt values, not percentages of current frame. Values less than 0.00001
// mean that this value is ignored. These can be adjusted with the
// game.minsmoothdt and game.maxsmoothdt console commands
MinMWSmooth_dt = 0.0 // 0.01
MaxMWSmooth_dt = 0.0 // 0.5
// Feedback factors for MW smoothing. Each of these may be between 0.0
// and 1.0, with 0.0 meaning "use 100% of the traditionally-calculated
// value for this, 1.0 meaning "use 100% of the new calculation for
// this", and 0.5 meaning "average the two exactly." In limited
// testing, values closer to 0 than 1 tend to work better.
//
// PositionFactor is used to blend between the just-calculated
// position and the last frame's position. A value of 0 will use only
// the highly-smoothed position, a value of 1 will use the 'best
// guess' position of where they are, and a value of 0.5 will use 50%
// of both values. Values between 0.75 and 0.999 will probably be
// intolerable. This value is applied on a per-frame basis, so as
// your framerate goes up, PositionFactor will seem to get stronger.
//
// VelocityFactor is used to blend between the true (physics)
// velocity (value of 0) and the velocity needed to get it going
// towards its true position (value of 1).
MWSmooth_PositionFactor = 0.999 // 0.15
MWSmooth_VelocityFactor = 0.00
What commando posted is probablly right, I don't know what I changed, if someone could give me a good gameprefs.ini I could use that+winmerge and make a normal file. Besides that I tweaked so many things, most randomely, that i dont know what is stock and what isn't.
Oh, and maxsmoothdt and minsmoothdt can be left at stock values, zero jsut makes them at default.
The most recent Gameprefs I found outside a full install is in 65z.
Well done Spawn, it was nearly speck with 1.2 at the very most things were a quarter of a ships length behind the hitbox, and even with the huge increase in studdering ships i always knew where they were and always hit them. with mwf 1 this should be the ultimate win! :D you sir win a free interwebz!
now if only we could get some kind of "smoothness" while we have the visual model and the hitbox in the same spot, might have a sezure eventually with those twitching units on the screen :P
The two DT values do NOT go to "defaults" when set to 0. The shell shows them at 0 and thus they are not applied every frame. Thus, there is no minimum or maximum smoothing information per frame, from my understanding. That is why I recommended setting them to 0 to begin with, or tweaking them to something non-stock if setting them to 0 didn't help.
My gameprefs has had them at 0 for a few days now.
That was a good find by you, Wz.
If/when GSH fixes what caused this, we may have to reset these values.
I'd like to know what the "dt" stands for. Distance timing? Derivative?
Wonderful! Cheers guys!
dt would be calculus notation, more or less derritive of time.
Quote from: CmptrWz on March 07, 2006, 06:10:39 AM
The two DT values do NOT go to "defaults" when set to 0. The shell shows them at 0 and thus they are not applied every frame. Thus, there is no minimum or maximum smoothing information per frame, from my understanding. That is why I recommended setting them to 0 to begin with, or tweaking them to something non-stock if setting them to 0 didn't help.
My gameprefs has had them at 0 for a few days now.
Ill say it again, the effects of it being at zero and being at the default values are the same for me.
Well, then, maybe there's more than one factor at work here. People insisting that this issue should be "so easy" to see/fix/whatever might need to open their eyes, if what works for one person isn't working for another. Play with the tuning values. Really. Report all relevant info, such as what's shown in the scores display for pings, lossage, etc.
-- GSH
I've had a Titan DM up for 4 1/2 hours while I've been cutting firewood. Nice to see some joiners joined.
If anybody's available, we can go test and document settings to try to narrow it down.
Yesterday, I commented out all the smoothing settings, but it didn't help.
I don't think there ever was a "easy fix" for this problem, but it may take a much larger testing group to work through the values that are "tune-able" to find the "right spot"...it may be fiixable this way. I see it as a positive sign that a few are actually trying tweaks that appear to be getting improvement on the problem.
It's a good place to start.
QuoteWell, then, maybe there's more than one factor at work here. People insisting that this issue should be "so easy" to see/fix/whatever might need to open their eyes, if what works for one person isn't working for another. Play with the tuning values. Really. Report all relevant info, such as what's shown in the scores display for pings, lossage, etc.
[/qutoe]
I doubt this model lag is affected by ping or loss that much. I can host an Instant Action game with multiworld enabled and models will be lagged behind the hitboxes. This is without any other players nor can any other players join due to the fact it is in single player mode. I'm pretty sure playing through the campaign mode with /multiword enabled will induce the same behavior. It started in release candidate 1 for some odd reason. I can run the same exact test on the last private build and release candidate 1 and they both behave differently. In the last private build, before release candidate 1, a scav and its hitbox are relatively close together. You can ram the scav from behind and you will be stopped before you start clipping into the model. In release candidate 1 and newer, you can ram the same scav from behing, but you will completely end up inside the scav's model before you actually collide into it. Increasing game.maxsmooth seems to help with this. When this is increased, the model and the hitbox are more in sync. I set game.maxsmooth 5 and it seems to work relatively well. The ai will warp from time to time, but the hitbox and model seem in sync for the most part. I'm curious as to how human controlled units will behave with this setting because players are much less predictable than the ai.
Actually, once gameprefs was tweaked, I noticed no warp at all. Much better than 1.2, but some smoothing settings would need to be changed from default, having people require changing settings manually/downloading another file can only just cause problems.
Well, dont know about who else tried it, but i hav no vis lag or lag either, and on my pc it is better, just like spawn said.
Question?
Will these player-assited fixes be rolled into another Bigger or better PB3?....or will they need to be integrated via a overall players patch?
As has been said around the community, getting the best physics "outta the box" is the best way for larger acceptance.
Yes, a "Vet" rec would be a alternative, but it would still crete a factioned 1.3 group, as opposed to a stock set of physics that pleased most.
Eyes arwe getting blury...time to stop drinkin' this early in the day....
It depends on how sucessful they are. If red completes everything in two weeks and people like it, then it may be included. There is a certain fear of adding "new" things to 1.3, some people concider it a mod and things like that don't help much.
The patch13.pak file will be updated with the physics and balance adjustments, then we'll have a good base from which to develop variants.
There won't be a PB3 as far as I know. GSH wants to get on with his life, so another few releases and that should be it, so we should all hunker down and test everything now.
Two weeks? Who said we only had two weeks?
If it's only the vets whining about physics, then it's a natural for them to download something. With recy variants and the ability to specify what MPVehicles.txt is used, it's easy to make any set of ODFs a variant. No bad assets needed.
-- GSH
It's everybody complaining about the physics, even me. :| The vets have some really good insights into the physics and balance as they are the ones who play it the most and the hardest, so I'm trying to enlist their help in getting a good base laid down and they've been very helpful. Well, except for Spawn. He's a troublemaker, ya know. :-P
Quote from: GSH on March 09, 2006, 06:08:40 PM
If it's only the vets whining about physics, then it's a natural for them to download something. With recy variants and the ability to specify what MPVehicles.txt is used, it's easy to make any set of ODFs a variant. No bad assets needed.
-- GSH
Do not forget that Vets are what make up the bulk of the BZ2 players in regards to solid hours put in to online play. It only takes a small sample of lamers to ruin it for everyone else.
However, I only disagree with your principles. Your actions though are a much more agreeable by contrast.
QuoteIf it's only the vets whining about physics
dude, IF...IF...IF??? There is 3 times as many ppl playing 1.2 than 1.3 every day (I know becuase i can count them using mm5). Why is this, because VETS make up MOST of the bz world...And MOST (not all) but MOST vets enjoy hoving and being challenged battling other vets hoving...Hovering isnt the problem, since most people playing bz2 want hovering...
what is the problem...simple...the problem is that a minoriety of newbies and intermediant players have enough troubles fighting vets without them hovering and destorying their bases...(excluding the few vets who don't enjoy the challenge of hovering in air)...How would i recomend fixing the problem to please EVERYONE...
Reform the serve controls to include the ability to use either a hoverable 1.3 or a nonhoverable 1.3...Being not an expert in the area of game programing, I can't specify the file type that controlls physics...but i can recomend you making 2 seprate ones, which would be controlled by a simple click by a server of a game (it is possible)...
1.3 needs to please MOST of the bz2 players, or it will be a failer...however, you can keep making more public beta versions till you figure our how solve the matter of hovering or no hovering...how long must it take, PB12? PB53?
FYI: to ppl that might not understand my point, play 1.1 and/or 1.2 7 years...You learn so much how to
Avenger quit being an idiot. This whole issue was discussed long ago and many times since. If you want any more info then pm me, or bug scout. There is no reason to bring up the exact same bullhoot again.
"If it's only the vets whining about physics, then it's a natural for them to download something."
IF that were true, you would be correct...but it isn't JUST the vets...its most anyone who plays a MP game. ( I saw this in a MPI game alone).
so, it APPEARS this is something nearly universal, so the change(if made) should be for the stock configurations. IF the "fixed" values do in fact resolve the problem..then the "fixed values" logically should be the stock values.
IF the "new" stock values create a unpleasant effect for a small % of players then THAT small group shopuld be the ones left to tweak via the gameprefs...
But hey.... :mrgreen: <<<<I actually had hair like this in the '70's.
And yes, Avenger is being a fool...as I said elsewhere...12 year-olds...
I'm sick and tired of a bunch of whiny types thinking they speak for everyone.
-- GSH
As a hovering"vet" of some years now id just like to say, how much more challenging bz is without hovering..... Great dog fights that dont end in the looser just flying away. well done all involved.
Refreshing! Thanks!
Some years ago someone posted about WEAKER weapons being a lot more fun, as they extended dogfights and made them a true thing of skill rather than who jumped who first... I think it takes some years to recognize the truth in that... :)
-Av-
Yes it is possible, I have a mod with lots of more powerfull weapons up the tech tree, it does desend into total carnage and very short fights. Rebalancing them all is not an appealling prospect.
I posted an idea on the private board a few months back about making a reverse tech tree, where the weapons got weaker, i.e., the advanced weapons became unavailable (or even have the scrap pools/scrap availability decrease) as time passed, so you'd have to make the most of the early game. That would make it like a real war, where the resources were used up rapidly and you'd be fighting with the bare minimums if you survived.
Except that in a real war takes longer then an hour. Also would be impossible to balance, could just get a bunch of advanced weapons at the start and then the enemy has no possibility of coming back.
FYI spawn...my windows won't run that zip program...If you do make a more stable gameprefs would you mind copying and pasting it on the boards dance...
Just get 7zip, when installed extract something by right clicking on it and use the options in that context menu.
So any hints on what else been tweaked in gamepref yet or is it still a big secret only 7z user are allow to know :?
I played a lots with all the gamesmooth options and found out good settings yet but still missing some tweaks. Some help would be apreciated.
Try the first page of this thread, post by Commando.
In the first post there is a link to the official 7zip client, winrar can also open it if your more familler with that.
*Winrar doesnt open the file at least the version i bought (3.0 french), i just tried it.*
Are we allow to spam this board with a pulicity product and forcing every players to download 7zip if they want to play/test in 1.3? I guess not but its just me.
I need to know what does fix the "visual lag" so i can explain it better to friends, new players and other players.
So like i said i played with the 4 gamesmooth setting talked about in this topic but i feel like there is much more and now i wonder if anyone else did find something. You wrote somewhere your fix was random tweaks so even if i find all the changed you made to your gamepreff id still be far to find what does fix it. Also your gamepref will not help me much. I dont have any software to compare it with my gamepref and im not interested in downloading one either!
1.3 testers are pretty much required to have 7z on their computers in order to test the latest versions of 1.3. I don't see what's the big deal, it takes up a few megs or space. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to, but it is highly encouraged that you use it if you want to use the log posted above.
I have a trial copy of winrar and it opens .7z files just fine. Version is 3.5.1, try updating before complaining?
GSH switched to 7-Zip around end of 2004 for distributing beta builds, due mostly to a higher compression factor (compared to Winzip) and also that it is freeware (per GNU licensing).
Thx for all the help i wished i had :-o
Cant wait to meat you in the zone!
You could ask scout, he IS your div leader :-P
Lords of Chaos Battlezone II Division leaders are
{LoC}lubberlick
{LoC}Bacardiman
{LoC}10*Gauge
{LoC}Airhog
And yes i talk with scout but im also allowed to come here for help but since private beta i always been ignored and its not changing today. I first thought that was because i wasnt known so i started hosting 1.3 games on a regular basis and brought some vets to1.3 pb1. That was untill i got my pc stolen and stopped playing games.
But nothing ever changed yet im still pushed in a corner like most multiplayers, damned to wait untill final release. We had talk at begining of 1.3pv about ground bumping and the lack of speed while using aerodinamyc position and we still with those problems and some more.
At this stade of beta we start finding good gamepref settings wich were left there to correct some situation by ourself and to addapt the game performance to your pc performance and again there is like an interdiction to tell clearly multiplayers what setting they must play with. There was a good starting point with the 4 gamesmooth settings but it had to stop there for some reason anyone interested in knowing more got redirected to a gamepreff.ini file wich doesnt explain what been changed and what did help and what didnt.
And again we have to test by ourself if we want to find out, wich is fine by me cause i like testing wich is why i always been around 1.3. but i thought we had a "team" and we would share information togheter.
Anyway im still in 1.3 so just ask my help if you want it cause im not gonna ask your again.
Like i said meat you in the zone or just never meat!
For the record, it is hard to become a King (division leader) in LoC because the requirements are strict. One of those requirements is activeness, Scout isn't a very active BZ2 player.
What about lubber?
Scout is relatively active, but in different games.
Quote from: GSH on March 10, 2006, 01:48:51 PM
I'm sick and tired of a bunch of whiny types thinking they speak for everyone.
-- GSH
Is this more sick and tired than all the other times or just more of the same?
Quote from: Spawn on March 23, 2006, 05:25:10 PM
What about lubber?
Scout is relatively active, but in different games.
Lubber is an emperor. Much like a commander-in-chief, he does not need to coordinate or participate in battles should he choose not to. He is a founder and is thus given special rights including the ability to lead several divisions.
Hi guys, so what's the latest on the visual lag? Should I install PB2 now, or wait for a confirmed fix?
It should be safe to install pb2. A fix is in the works along with a few treats in the latest versions of 1.3 (post public beta 2). I won't comment on them here.
Wug, have you given up on the aips? The ISDF should be much better about building the Training Facility and Tech Center since they will now rotate the buildings appropriately.
Coolness... I'll install PB2 and try it out.
No, I haven't given up on making the AIPs, but I haven't touched it in a few months. Didn't think anyone would remember, heh! I guess I better get it finished before 1.3 is finalized. :wink:
The ISDF building problem was a real show stopper, IMHO. I had just gotten to the point where I thought I had the scavenger overproduction solved.
Has there been any new AIP commands introduced in PB2? Any documentation or examples?
Look at the modlog posted in another thread. It contains all of the new aip commands added in 1.3, pre and post public beta 1. Everything up to public beta 2 should be included. The modlog mainly contains odf commands along with aip commands and not general fixes. The ai will automatically rotate a building if they can't build it facing a specific direction. If rotation doesn't solve the problem, the ai locates another spot to build.
I'm used to winzip, so this 7-zip thing is somewhat different. I extracted the file to the addon folder, but when I started the game, it said I had duplicate files. So I deleted the oldest duplicate config file that held the duplicate GamePrefs.ini file. The game runs fine, the ships don't have that visual lag problem, but all ships are different colors (Scions are blue)and the buildings have weird little markings on them. I'm not complaining, just wanted to know if this is on purpose.
I had it set up so you just need to extract it to the directory you installed battlezone into. Sorry about wrong info at the start. The color thing could be the mipmaps setting, try changing it back to four.
Im probably and idiot but this visual lag, or choppy-ness while in a Public Beta Game is driving me nutz. This Forum has nothing but a file to download to try to fix it but i can't figure out what to do with it. When I take out the old file of my GamePref.ini and put in the new one I download and go play the game I get all the green bars and notifications and writtings everywhere. Almost like Console but not exactly. Any advice what I should do? Like can you spell out everything I must do?
Quote
// Range for a percentage of a craft's normal forward velocity it may
// be smoothed by when multiworld is on. This value should be between
// 0.0 and 5.0, where 1.0 means that the craft is allowed to travel up
// to 100% of its forward velocity per frame.
//
// Setting the min down to 0 is not recommended, as craft rotating in
// place w/o any position changes won't have their changes shown until
// it moves.
//
// Setting the max number higher will be slightly more jumpy, while
// lower numbers will tend to induce warp if remote players maneuver
// really quickly.
MinMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 5.0 // 0.5
MaxMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 5.0 // 1.5
// Some other clamps on the smoothing code ranges. These are in absolute
// dt values, not percentages of current frame. Values less than 0.00001
// mean that this value is ignored. These can be adjusted with the
// game.minsmoothdt and game.maxsmoothdt console commands
MinMWSmooth_dt = 0.0 // 0.01
MaxMWSmooth_dt = 0.0 // 0.5
// Feedback factors for MW smoothing. Each of these may be between 0.0
// and 1.0, with 0.0 meaning "use 100% of the traditionally-calculated
// value for this, 1.0 meaning "use 100% of the new calculation for
// this", and 0.5 meaning "average the two exactly." In limited
// testing, values closer to 0 than 1 tend to work better.
//
// PositionFactor is used to blend between the just-calculated
// position and the last frame's position. A value of 0 will use only
// the highly-smoothed position, a value of 1 will use the 'best
// guess' position of where they are, and a value of 0.5 will use 50%
// of both values. Values between 0.75 and 0.999 will probably be
// intolerable. This value is applied on a per-frame basis, so as
// your framerate goes up, PositionFactor will seem to get stronger.
//
// VelocityFactor is used to blend between the true (physics)
// velocity (value of 0) and the velocity needed to get it going
// towards its true position (value of 1).
MWSmooth_PositionFactor = 0.999 // 0.15
MWSmooth_VelocityFactor = 0.00
If you can, only this part needs to remain unchanged, open the gameprefs.ini file with notepad and look though it, changing whatever you dont want back to what it was, or if you have the original one then just replace what is above in that and overwrite it completely.
I followed the instructions and the visual lag still happens.
No security or firewall is on when I run BZ2
Pentium 4 3.2 Gig processor
AGPX8 128 Ati 9800
2-Sata drives that are striped.
I am not the only other player experienceing this problem.
Actually I haven't met a player that isn't experiencing this problem.
Almost all games have stopped in multiplayer and only I and Axeminister has been hosting as of lately.
Problem seems to start at the point the base is built, but when the host get's attacked or is involved in a major battle than the games ruined.
Just thought I would report in.
The good news is I haven't had any AV's as of yet.
Although I would sooner put up with the AV's than loose control of the game to choppiness.
May switch back to PB1. Until a fix comes out, if one does.
PB2 while playing flesh storm hasn't had any problems so far but I haven't had the chance to do some more testing.