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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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-
ok, but 10 seems to be a relic from the 1.2 days. How about a default of 5?
Why does it matter? You can change with the utmost simplicity...are you guys really all that lazy?
Quote from: OvermindDL1Because 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 :D.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteMWF 1 means that the player´s worlds are updated with the servers world ten times per second.
Actually, that's wrong. MWF 1 means that the player's LOCAL graphics world is updated with the player's LOCAL network world ten times per second.
The rate at which the server updates the clients' network worlds might well not exist. It's certainly more frequently than once a second, it's not effected by MWF settings, and there's a perfectly good chance that it actually doesn't have a lockstep-style frequency at all, instead simply sending mesages for movement, attack etc as they happen.
Quote from: DarkFoxI don't understand what makes you think this would increase network traffic.
I´d assume, since it is the server who decides "what is really going on" there is some network traffic between the clients and the server at each lockstep. But I just dont know.
GJC - the key here is understanding how the BZ2 multiworld system really works. Each computer running battlezone2 in multiplayer effectually has 2 'worlds' running - a network world, which is updated by the server at some unknown rate, and a graphics world. These two local worlds are synchronised at a rate determined from the MWF setting.
QuoteIt 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.
Agreed, the same way as a high graphics setting can put too much strain on a CPU, and cause a computer to miss updates. My point is that whether the player is on a modem or BB connection makes no difference, it's all about how fast a player's CPU is.
LOL youre too fast 4 me.
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like Ive learned something again. :-)
err how do u explain then...
server is on mwf 4...
you and another one are on 4 as well.... preaty clean... lil warps..
then he changes to 1 and well - u cant hit him anymore...
while if u change to 1 as well u might have a chance of less warping
and the server havnt changed anything.. only because one of the players changes to 1 he started warping freakin badly
your comp can't handle mwf 1 then, thats why I cant go mwf 1 on my comp :D
Simple pheonix - the server can't handle MWF 1, and as such when it's set to one, his computer is overstressed, and starts dropping network packets.
then why only the one with mwf1 warps while the others are cool?
+ even when a server can hold mwf1 all warps cause of mwf1... while if all were on 4 it would've been preaty smooth... only cause one is on1 another one on 2 etc....
and i find it that if im on 1 i cant hit ppl with 2.... but if i go to 2 almost perfact :o
I think the server has a lot to deal with, especially
in 1.2 rather than 1.3 games.
For instance, in a 1.2 vet strat 4v4 there could be
3 people on mwf4, people mwf2 and 3 people mwf1
forcing the server to send updates at mwf1, 2 and 4.
I wonder if that causes extra load than if they
are all on the same mwf (like in 1.3) even if that
same mwf is 2 or 1.
I wonder if anyone with the real knowledge can answer that??
again please read this
MWF has no effect on the amount of network traffic.
please return to the top and start reading again.
the only case where it would add to the load would be if one of the computers could not hadle the strain and was falling behind. fps < 10
And yet in my experience a player with mwf1 and decent fps
has an advantage in doggyfighting over and above the
tracking of warp of his enemies, if those enemies are using mwf
4 or higher.
The decent (40+) fps would indicate his comp is not under
undue strain, and is sending all the network stuff it should be,
yet his low mwf gives him an advantage.
Dropping fps due to too-high graphics does NOT give the same
advantage in doggyfights as dropping fps due to too-low mwf.
I therefore doubt mwf is a purely client setting, and does infact
affect player-to-player network traffic.
Fps going under 10 messes up doggyfighting ability in a
completely negative way, and messes up the whole online
game for the server and other players.
I found under 20 fps to be pretty bad too.
Rooster - going down to 40 fps will make your ship start to wap. I tested this with graphics settings over a LAN, and the framerate is pretty much directly proportional to warp, whether that framerate is induced by graphics or MWF settings.
The only advantage a player with a decent framerate gains from using MWF1 is in tracking his enemies better, and yes, it really does make that much differece. Just think, he's getting *twice* the positional accuracy of someone on MWF2. 10 times the accuracy of someone on MWF10. With most commonly-used weapons, such as minis or chains, this translates pretty closely to damage, and as such the MWF1 player will slaughter the MWF4 player with relative ease.
so bascily ur saying that using low mwf gives advantge over some1 with high mwf - thats all what i needed to hear...
anyways how come that if some1 is on mwf2 and im on 1 he warps real bad for me but if i change to 2 i can hit him fine... isnt 1 supposed to be better then 2?
Pheonix - that sounds like MWF1 is overtaxing your computer, hence causing dropped packets on your network, and as such making it hard to hit people because of increased warp. Rest assured they'll have trouble hitting you too, which is great if you're pummel-rushing their rec...
exploits, exploits... thank god MWF is fixed now.
im ususaly on 4...
and well if im on 2 and some1 is 1 i cant hit him... but if i go to 1 i cant hit him but the not the ones with 2... can hit all others exept those that usees 2.. :s
the mwf in 1.3 is great
I tthink your all wrong> It means how many times durring a game the host has to go pottie :rollingpin:
Lemme check to see if Ive got this right, dont hesitate to correct me because Im not even trying to understand half of this. I need to find out the MWF that works best for me on my computer. Right? Then set my games to that? But I think PF was saying that that would make it difficult for me to hit other players that have a higher MWF. So far so good?
MWF is gay,
my exprience with mwf so far - the lower u go the harder ur to hit
and no, i only had this problem awhaile ago, when i had to play mwf1 vrs ahem
anyways, some of them used 1 while some of them used 2... when i went 1 - i could hit the 1's but not the 2s, but when i went 2 - i could hit the 2s but not the 1s
this is just my exprience, all the real explantion of what mwf is supposed to do preaty much crash with what i just said though, so what i said - technicaly doesnt make sense, but thats the way it is (or was)
So that doesnt happen to you anymore when you set your MWF? Or does it not happen to you because you think MWF is gay (therefor you dont mess with it anymore)?
i find it im stable on 3 mostly, if everyone warps badly and my fps can handle it i move to 2
i stopped my testing (including using 1 sometimes) and im mostly on US servers now, and im euro - so lag is expected - more then the german (or other euro) servers
DarkFox is very right in this. Even LAN games start to warp badly if one of machines is running with low framerates.
I think that server/player running over 2.5Ghz/2500+ can handle mwf1 :o
Whats the reason why games with 60 units and full bases freeze ???
(3d cards affect bz2 graphics performance in a minimal way, graphics seem to be morely calculated by CPU)
Usually i cant play strat no more than 60 minutes cause at that moment framerate is unplayable...
The reason why N0|<0mment's SO Mod dosent lag as much as other stuff is that there are less things to coordinate...
btw great work with it No|< :)
EDIT: Lately i have encountered a fact that some bz2 vet players have learned a way how to use bz2 warp intentionally/as an advantage.
There seems to be some kind of unit speed limit what bz2 engine is capable to smooth (make warpless).
Some learned a way how to shoot enemy's hull to 50/100 health before enemy is able to hit attacker/get visual image from attacker
(This can be easily done with especially scout cause of its high speed, but even a tank can reach enough speed in skilled hands to do this). All these "lag attackers" have putted automatic leveling off and absolute pitch on from bz2 options page, after that they accelerate with nose down + e-key classic high speed acceleration (bug) to get the maximun speed. After they have maximum speed they run to a side of the enemy (they dont reduce speed before they are very close to enemy) and shoot...it takes really long time before enemy realises what is happening to him, cause there is no visual attacker/nobody to target/nobody to avoid. Attacker appears visual/hitable after about ~4 seconds. These 4 seconds can ruin the whole fun of bz2 mp strat...
Occasionally it is really hoot to play in vet strats..........cause people really know how to kill...
Simply: BZ2 units are too fast for BZ2's engine. I think game makers never knew how high speed units can reach in skilled hands.
No doubt, this is the heaviest of all bugs in BZ2...
It really pisses me off that i cant do no hoot to repair this.
(i dont understand C++ and there is no permission to rewrite bz2 code)
Any chance someone could fix this ?
You counter with the same manouver and be aggresive in teams to their nearest pools. BTW it's A_W_E and nosedown in 1.2 and W_E nosedown in 1.3.
Basic rule in bz is if they do it so can you.
I always thought wouldnt it be better to remove that bug...and replace it with a Boost function for hover vechiles?
The boost would be whereyou press S + A + D ...it takes a split second to activate, turns off your weapons when it starts and then propels you forward much faster.
by making the paramaters of the boost determined by the ODF
By implimenting this system you can get rid of the nose down bug...but Keep the gameplay
E.g....the 'turning off of weapons' replaces the 'pointing weapons into the ground.
the split second delay before boost starts' replaces the ' split second delay having to point the nose down'.
the increase in speed via boost replaces the....increase in speed due to the bug.
the 'reduced abilty to straf' whilst using boost replaces the '' using straf thrusters in an inflexeble way''.
Making the whole hover craft class [boost] paramters dependant on whats inside the odf's would make it easy to tweak and edit to what the vets find fun.
And I am betting a boost system would be less taxing on the server than pointing nose down because it wouldnt tax the in-game physics code so much.
It would also mean players would actually *look* at the maps they were playing. I had gotten so used to using nose down that when i actually didnt use it i was pleasntly suprized by how good the maps looked...even though i had played them 100s of times before.
BZ has survived so long due to it's gameplay why change it now hemp, I actually like having the long time players keep playing.
yeah...thats the point. This 'boost' system would be designed to *not* change the gameplay. Just replace one area of the gameplay with what is the same thing...but less laggy....more realistic....easily changed if vets feel the need to change parts of it....
*and* maps would actually get looked at.
The main problem with the W, A, E boost is the fact that a ship's speed will exceed the smoothening code. With 1.3, this is adjustable fortunately. I was always disappointed that the Q wasn't binded to slower thrusters and W binded to faster thrusters like in bz1. If your boost idea could be implemented, Q could be transformed into the boost button. I don't know if many would embrace the change though. Just look at 1.3's player base for an example.
yes, thats just it. If you had the boost function done in a certain way it would not cause problems with the smoothing code.
Also, since you make the 'boost' function as not an attempt to 'eradicate the bug that is nose down'...but instead to *fully* replace all aspects of it....then you end up with a game thats just as fun, if not more..to play.....and tactically/stratigically identical.
btw i use q for weapon switching, i would personally prefer the idea of having to press several buttons at once...it *feels* like your making the ship boost or something heh.
You could even stick a simple AI code that means if it is with in a certain distance from an enemy it wont use boost....thus giving the illusision that the pilots are intelligently thinking about it....if you wanted to that is. I would personally just leave it out.
Heck, to make it look like you are going faster, have it adjust the fov to a lower amount the faster you go... all of this is just thoughts, it will not happen...