-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] OK good to know, we are using different processors for testing (some which are Intel). Sometimes the simplest solutions are best -- rate checking the tick at 1 per .01 second did the trick. The difference is not noticeable to our eyes.
Just for my own well-being though, I'd love to hear any ideas for what could cause the lag in dual core as opposed to single core. So far my best hypothesis is that the tick function we're using (ItemPostFrame()) is called more often in dual core systems, causing too many servercmds to spawn. Thanks for the assistance. On 6/24/07, Jay Stelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a random guess, but if all of the multi-core machines are AMD x2 > processors then there's a driver you can install that changes some > problematic timing behavior on those systems: > > AMD Dual-Core Optimizer > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_970 > 6,00.html > > > Jay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 1:44 PM > > To: hlcoders@list.valvesoftware.com > > Subject: [hlcoders] con_command lag with multiple processors > > > > -- > > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > CONTEXT: In our mod, the default state is to have a mouse > > cursor on-screen. > > Right-click and hold is mouselook, left-click selects > > entities, left-click and drag moves the selected entities. > > This is achieved by sending a trace client-side at the > > location of the mouse and sending the endpos to the server to > > update the position of the selected entities. This update is > > done every tick. > > > > PROBLEM: On some test machines, this works well. On other > > test machines, it works for a couple of seconds, then the > > position updates begin to lag worse and worse over time. The > > only consistency we've seen is that single core machines work > > and multi-core machines lag. > > > > QUESTIONS: Is this a known problem? Or are we just not > > optimizing well enough? Any ideas how to optimize this process? > > > > NOTE: We have tried setting the affinity of hl2.exe to single > > processor to no avail. > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > archives, please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > -- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
