On 6/28/2011 1:01 AM, DontWannaName! wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if they [halved the maximum allowed FPS] as a fix for
the server lag and that server fps being capped lower is a good way to ensure
all servers run well and match the tickrate better.
Possibly, but one wonders why they don't
@Nikita Bulaev:
>> Can't say if this one is bad right now. Since orangebox update we used
>> to set our fps around the tickrate - give it a try :-)
>
> What do you mean? More info, please =)
Sorry, this should be enough information. Like i said, just try to make
some better servers now by yoursel
I wouldn't be surprised if they did it as a fix for the server lag and that
server fps being capped lower is a good way to ensure all servers run well and
match the tickrate better. Basically to benefit admins so they can run more
servers, reach the same performance as before and help ensure cus
lol @ John.
Let's make this a serious discussion instead.
Indeed, many providers sell their servers based on FPS rate (the
higher fps, the higher price). Most providers are just doing this for
getting more money, nothing else is changed on those servers and
mostly the servers are _not_ run
gt;
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
>
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Now 500FPS max after update
> Message-ID: <4e097cee.6090...@giga-hosting.biz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
>
> lol @ John.
>
> Inde
I have set fps_max to 0 and I am getting everything between 99 and 850.
> Confirm:
> ===
> console:> fps_max
> "fps_max" = "1000" ( def. "300" )
> - Frame rate limiter
>
> console:> stats
> CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
> 0.00 0.000.000
2011/6/28 :
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:08:47 +0200
> From: "michael.koeb...@giga-hosting.biz"
>
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Now 500FPS max after update
> Message-ID: <4e096fef.9060...@giga-hosting.biz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charse
2011 8:46 AM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Now 500FPS max after update
Hmm, it does appear to be only processing on every other frame, so FPS
is halved.
Valve, please consider reverting this, or adding a command-line option
to override it. Many prov
How is the cpu usage?
Il giorno 28/giu/2011 08:03, "Никита Булаев [Nikita Bulaev]" <
djfireb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Confirm:
> ===
> console:> fps_max
> "fps_max" = "1000" ( def. "300" )
> - Frame rate limiter
>
> console:> stats
> CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
> 0.00 0.0
lol @ John.
Indeed, many providers sell their servers based on FPS rate (the higher
fps, the higher price). Most providers are just doing this for getting
more money, nothing else is changed on those servers and mostly the
servers are _not_ running at best performance.
Also this one is not v
Hmm, it does appear to be only processing on every other frame, so FPS
is halved.
Valve, please consider reverting this, or adding a command-line option
to override it. Many providers sell servers based on FPS rate.
-John
On 6/27/2011 10:57 PM, Никита Булаев [Nikita Bulaev] wrote:
Confirm:
Yes, same on my side.
Can't say if this one is bad right now. Since orangebox update we used
to set our fps around the tickrate - give it a try :-)
Only bad thing in my eyes currently is that there is no information from
valve why the limited the framerate.
__
Confirm:
===
console:> fps_max
"fps_max" = "1000" ( def. "300" )
- Frame rate limiter
console:> stats
CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
0.000.000.000 0 454.66 0
===
Valve, are you kidding??
2011/6/28
13 matches
Mail list logo
