->-----Original Message----- ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sindre ->Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:04 PM ->To: hlds_linux; m0gely ->Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] More ranting about cpu-usage and last ->engine-update.
->>A better question would be why does that stuff matter to the ->server at all ->>anyway. It's nice how I justify getting faster cpu's through ->donations from ->my ->>reg's, and.. well I guess that my problem now isn't it. -> ->fully agree, eye-candy should by no means increase server ->cpu-load, I suspect ->they compile newer (or changed) maps with some really silly settings. This is a very good question, and one I've been asking for a while. It would be great to hear why some maps take up more cpu than others on the server. Some stuff I can understand, such as for example, the trigger sounds in aztec, or the constant barrage of sound in torn would cause more cpu usage because of the server side stuff having to be sent to the client. (a great tip is to ripent torn and take out all the entries for teh various .wav files that are constantly being triggered, then re-import the ent file, and place it on the server. if you do it right, the client doesnt need an updated file, as its all server side) But, why would the new inferno take up way more cpu? not sure. Maybe its because narby used a newer compiler version, but the question is why would that effect the server cpu in any way between versions of maps? the new inferno and aztec are both pretty much redone from scratch I think, not just texture differences, but the "general" layout should if anything be more efficient than anything... I would love to hear a response from valve on this, but I honestly doubt that they have anyone who could take the time at the moment to hunt down the causes... kev _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
