-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I've been on servers that claim to be 100 tick and 1000 fps and net_graph only reports max to 66 fps. I've tried changing the kernel timer on my various boxes and the client settings but each time the game governors kick in. Clearly the source engine has been designed as one, an online experience, and two, the only way to ensure that someone doesn't take advantage of another through uber hardware or connectivity is to place governors within the game. So servers can try to boost performance this way or that but when the final calculations are made Valve has control of the software because they wrote it. Believe me, if someone is getting 1000 fps Valve is going to want to know about it. Because if they are getting 1000 fps, someone is changing the game. If they are changing the game then Valve is losing control of their product.
On 10/3/07, Crazy Canucks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't post modernity wonderful!? > > But it is absolutely true, when most client computers can only manage 50 > to 200 fps, depending on the situation, 1000 fps sounds extremely > impressive, and when something sounds impressive, the brain is more than > capable of imagining the performance matches the impression. > > Drek > > Guy Watkins wrote: > > } -----Original Message----- > > } From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux- > > } [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stanley > > } Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:49 PM > > } To: [email protected]; > [email protected] > > } Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000 FPS Fairy Tale > > } > > } At 10:05 PM 10/2/2007, Guillaume Parent wrote: > > } >That's where the brain comes in. Client sees big number. Client > believes > > } >it works better, even though it's exactly the same. Client buys 1000 > FPS > > } >server. > > } > > } There's no way to tell what higher FPS does, since the engine source > > } is closed. Unless valve chimes in and explains it, nobody is right. > > > > I disagree, until Valve chimes in, everybody is right! > > > > Guy > > > > } > > } > > } -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > } > > } Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > > } A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) > frowned > > } upon? > > } Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting" > > > I happen to like putting my reply at the top damnit. For several good > reasons, none of which I can remember right now... > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > -- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
