I was watching it on youtube, the one that garry was observing. Seemed to run pretty slow. Did it run any better when players were more spread out?
No source server can run with 128 players without stupid amounts of lag.
[QUOTE=oobiedoob;35162792]I was watching it on youtube, the one that garry was observing. Seemed to run pretty slow. Did it run any better when players were more spread out?[/QUOTE]
Sorry - which video are you talking about? :v:
Wait, wait...
What video ?
[video=youtube;ZAgE1bq0cgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAgE1bq0cgU[/video]
I suppose
We had a 64 vs 64 de_dust, might have been de_dust2 game once upon a time.
I think if memory serves it was in the UK2 IRC channel it was organised. That was insane...
[QUOTE=maurits150;35163633][video=youtube;ZAgE1bq0cgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAgE1bq0cgU[/video]
I suppose[/QUOTE]
dat 1
[editline]16th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pantho;35163672]We had a 64 vs 64 de_dust, might have been de_dust2 game once upon a time.
I think if memory serves it was in the UK2 IRC channel it was organised. That was insane...[/QUOTE]
dayum! thats cool. how well did it run? battlefield 2 aint got shit on Source! hehe. (except for better vehicle code)
[QUOTE=oobiedoob;35164312]dat 1
[editline]16th March 2012[/editline]
dayum! thats cool. how well did it run? battlefield 2 aint got shit on Source! hehe. (except for better vehicle code)[/QUOTE]
My PC then was not so shiny, so I've honestly no idea how the server coped. Only that my PC wept deeply.
this would be a lot easier if SRCDS was given more CPU power
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;35174294]this would be a lot easier if SRCDS was given more CPU power[/QUOTE]
Valve scrapped there multithreaded SRCDS beta long ago and declared no intentions to renew such a task. Which is pure stupidity on there part.
[QUOTE=oobiedoob;35164312]dat 1
[editline]16th March 2012[/editline]
dayum! thats cool. how well did it run? battlefield 2 aint got shit on Source! hehe. (except for better vehicle code)[/QUOTE]
thing is 128 player project reality actually works well
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ckX40pzg8[/media]
I wonder if Garry could continue implementing this mutlithreading in srcds, if he actually knows how to D:
I mean considering Garry's Mod being a much more CPU intensive game compared to CSS or TF2, mutli-threading on SRCDS will increase the performance by 100%+
[QUOTE=Ruzza;35179430]I wonder if Garry could continue implementing this mutlithreading in srcds, if he actually knows how to D:
I mean considering Garry's Mod being a much more CPU intensive game compared to CSS or TF2, mutli-threading on SRCDS will increase the performance by 100%+[/QUOTE]
pretty sure Valve controls that
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;35179657]pretty sure Valve controls that[/QUOTE]
Although Valve would listen to Garry more than they'd listen to us.
[QUOTE=Adzter;35180946]Although Valve would listen to Garry more than they'd listen to us.[/QUOTE]
that's what I've been saying with the whole "vehicles have been broken for 2 years, please get it fixed" thing...
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;35174294]this would be a lot easier if SRCDS was given more CPU power[/QUOTE]
Agreed.. especially with more and more servers turning to hyper-threading and having more cores. SRCDS could really take advantage of this.
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;35180984]that's what I've been saying with the whole "vehicles have been broken for 2 years, please get it fixed" thing...[/QUOTE]
Didn't someone make some custom .so files to fix that?
[QUOTE=Adzter;35181300]Didn't someone make some custom .so files to fix that?[/QUOTE]
They also broke.
[QUOTE=Pantho;35181877]They also broke.[/QUOTE]
They're still working for me, "vphysics_october.zip".
[QUOTE=Gran PC;35187489]They're still working for me, "vphysics_october.zip".[/QUOTE]
I only repeat what was said in a recent linux thread so I cannot confirm it, I could be wrong then :).
[QUOTE=Gran PC;35187489]They're still working for me, "vphysics_october.zip".[/QUOTE]
eventually there will be another vphysics update from Valve, and if AzuiSleet isn't available (or doesn't have a stroke of inspiration), we could be without a fix for 3+ months again (ask Exiled how that worked out)
[QUOTE=Spencer Sharkey;35181206]especially with more and more servers turning to hyper-threading and having more cores[/QUOTE] Do you even know what hyper-threading is? Hyper-threading != multicore.
Hyperthreading is Intel's way of attempting to make processors more efficient by giving them something to do while they are waiting for memory by having a second virtual thread. They can't execute at the same time as with a true multicore system.
It went horribly. It crashed and everyone's background became a blackguy cock.
[QUOTE=CmdrMatthew;35214065]Do you even know what hyper-threading is? Hyper-threading != multicore.
Hyperthreading is Intel's way of attempting to make processors more efficient by giving them something to do while they are waiting for memory by having a second virtual thread. They can't execute at the same time as with a true multicore system.[/QUOTE]
You miss understand him.
With more cores turning to HT, most server hosts have HT on by default which slightly diminish the power of each "core" as the threads will see it. This meaning single threaded applications will have less power.
And if they where not limited so they could take advantage of the benefits from HT.
[QUOTE=CmdrMatthew;35214065]Do you even know what hyper-threading is? Hyper-threading != multicore.
Hyperthreading is Intel's way of attempting to make processors more efficient by giving them something to do while they are waiting for memory by having a second virtual thread. They can't execute at the same time as with a true multicore system.[/QUOTE]
I always thought that it was where if the core is doing an addition instruction, it can also run a multiplication function at the same time
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
