Whatever is done to limit this these GSPs will still lie and cheat on some mythical metric that has nothing to do with how the game actually feels. Even if "FPS" is taken out of the picture, they'll find a new one.
On the other hand, I think it would be important to describe this for the folks actually running these servers(i.e. those of us on the mailing list) to reduce the impact on the lies by the GSPs. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kacper Nowak <[email protected]> wrote: > In my practical experiment it appears that it is as Gary Stanley said: > > QUOTE: > > "The server FPS is simply cycles / time, where time is from gettimeofday(), > with some bounds on the minimum usleep so making the usleep actually less > will crank up the server FPS (but not the simulation HZ, so the game isn't > actually faster, for Source engine games)." > END QUOTE > > I`ve tested my server on kernel with no preemption and the high preemption > with cyclictest program. FPS became almost straight line when cyclictest was > showing low values (usleep stable), but how is it connected to server > quality ? I`m not sure, becouse on both kernels i didnt notice any > difference in gameplay. > > Unfortunately tools like fpsmeter are missinterpretate by customers and > competiting companys, so they say often that this or that company is bad > becouse fps is not stable, which is total nonsens. > I also think that locking tickrate at some value would be good idea, like > it is in CSS. > > > Sorry for my english im tired :) > > KN > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
