-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Sorry Ian I forgot to mention, you should either get 64 fps or some value that is less that whatever you have set *fps_max* at. The default for *fps_max* is 300 which results in an fps of 250 or there abouts. No value for *fps_max* above 300 works to change the resultant fps until you set *fps_max* above 500 Nobody thus far as contradicted my statement on this issue, and nobody at all has been able to explain why this is the case. My guide specifies *fps_max* 600 as I cbf working out exactly what *fps_max * value I needed to set to achieve a resultant server fps of around 500fps I hope that makes sense Cheers On 9/7/05, Whisper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have Windows 2003 (fully patched) and we don't get the big fps boost > unless we use Windows Media Player or a pingboosting program of some sort. > We are using Dual Xeons though. > It also has exactly the same effect on my Windows XP Pro machine as well. > So it would be nice to know how people get 500fps without knowingly > changing the Windows Multimedia timer in some form. > What other services are you running on the box? Perhaps that is the > cause? And you are being ping boosted without your knowledge? > Hell, maybe Windows SRCDS changed recently to finally address this issue, > and Valve forgot to tell us, who knows? > On 9/7/05, Ian mu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -- > > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > Hiya, what I'm saying is I get 500 fps with no need for any timer and no > > > > enhancements to the o.s (and fwiw the media player or boost fix doesn't > > raise it above that if fps_max is set way higher, but it obviously does > > for > > some other people). I'm not complaining, or looking for a fix! I'm just > > pointing out according to the thread I should only get 64 or 1000 (I get > > 64 > > unless I set fps_max 600, then its a constant 500), so it may be worth > > quantifying that its not always the case in the thread and some people > > may > > be able to get 500. Why it is for some I have no idea, guessing its > > different o.s flavours. > > I do appreciate people trying to help me though, but its not required, > > just > > pointing out a possible mistake :). I'm totally fine with 500fps. > > > > On 9/7/05, James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > No problem, there are some things my uni 'CS' education may have been > > > good for :-s but i don't like to admit it. > > > > > > m1kest4r wrote: > > > > -- > > > > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > > > Thanks James, im sure you could tell what i know what i mean - im > > just > > > not > > > > 100% of the correct terminology :P > > > > > > > > On 9/7/05, James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>What you require is actually called a "high resolution timer" > > typically > > > >>many operating systems have no need to time interrupts on such a > > > >>frequent basis, however srcds needs around a 1000Hz timer to achieve > > > >>this fps. > > > >> > > > >>The reason for the srcdsfpsboost/media player references is that one > > of > > > >>the programatically easiest ways to get a high res timer from the NT > > > >>kernel is to load certain media libraries. > > > >> > > > >>Ian mu wrote: > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > --
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
