[QUOTE=sphinxa279;33301061]It does not happen, I have props going into the floor so they don't hover on the ground, walls shouldn't intersect anyway, you should use vertex manipulation to join their corners. I am going to test doors clipping out of the map one, but if you were a competent mapper the doors shouldn't be going outside to the void anyway.[/QUOTE]
The issues never make it into the final map. That's why they get fixed, because if something's crashing, there's obviously problems. But again, it's stupid to say that various elements in a map don't cause Source to crash.
As for kiwi, I apologize, read the wrong person's post.
in my years of various dabblings with the Source SDK I have never made a map crash, apart from that one time with a giant building made from fucking physboxes, that is an acceptable crash.
I've managed to make a crash by having a logic auto with an io on a delay, and leaving it to default settings (of remove on start). Fun times.
However, sphinxa is right. Props intersecting with brushes should cause it to crash. You should be working on the grid at all times, which won't cause brushes to intersect. I'm also not sure about the door one, but then i have never made a door prop enter the void.
The message is quite clear. You take the extra 5 seconds to make sure that the brush/prop is in the right place and you won't need to check afterwards. When you do your test runs, you will pick up the ones that you missed first time round.
Also, lag is primeraly used to describe ping.
You are talking about framerates...which is not lag.
im going to mostly play single player and sometimes play multiplayer so im basicly more worried with the computer than my internet
[QUOTE=jameselvin;33316394]im going to mostly play single player and sometimes play multiplayer so im basicly more worried with the computer than my internet[/QUOTE]
If you can build yourself one, AMD systems aren't the best nowadays for games etc, you can start off with an i3 processor and upgrade to an i5 when games become even more demanding.
too late guys my dad aint getting that pc anymore :(
im getting a shit one from here [url]http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/hp-pavilion-p6-2022uk-desktop-pc-11264383-pdt.html[/url]
I hoe your dad realizes that six months down the line that pc will begin to run slow. It will get to the point where you have to call the support line. I hope he takes out the support cover package otherwise they wont help you.
Youll be sold a pc by a salesman who knows shit about pcs. Ive been to currys and they thought sata cable was for technicians to place updates on your pc.
[editline]18th November 2011[/editline]
I hoe your dad realizes that six months down the line that pc will begin to run slow. It will get to the point where you have to call the support line. I hope he takes out the support cover package otherwise they wont help you.
Youll be sold a pc by a salesman who knows shit about pcs. Ive been to currys and they thought sata cable was for technicians to place updates on your pc.
So is anyone going to help me a little more, And its not the server. Ive played on my friends desktop before. Could it be Ethernet?
Could it be Steam?
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;33324562]That sir, is one shit-tastic. HP. I own a HP netbook(because I don't have enough money to save to build a gaming computer)and I will tell you now, your dad is gonna make a mistake.
For the same price he could learn to build a computer that will get close to running Crysis(that's right).
BTW
AMD is value since Intel is overpriced, but Intel performs far better than AMD.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree on the first point, however on your second point you've totally contradicted yourself? You pay for performance, if you don't like the price of an Intel chip, you buy a cheaper one - the AMD equivalent will always be a bit, sometimes quite a lot cheaper however you won't get exactly the same performance out of it.
[QUOTE=Dizla;33327378]Totally agree on the first point, however on your second point you've totally contradicted yourself? You pay for performance, if you don't like the price of an Intel chip, you buy a cheaper one - the AMD equivalent will always be a bit, sometimes quite a lot cheaper however you won't get exactly the same performance out of it.[/QUOTE]
If I was going to buy a PC today, and make it stupidly powerful I'd buy AMD. You heard me :)
8core
3.6Ghz a core with 4.5 turbo
Overclocks to 5.4Ghz with only a £70 cooler.
CPU Price: £195 and most amf3+ boards will work with it, BIOS update needed.
I've been a fanboy for Intel ever since the core2duo range, before that AMD where holding there own. They've had many years of being raped but I believe 2012 shall be there year :).
You will NEVER beat that performance under £300 from Intel, I'm not 100% sure but I doubt the top i7 would beat it's performance currently.
AMD's Bulldozer line isn't even out to the general public yet, so 8 cores is out of the question, not to mention nobody really needs over 4 cores at the moment. Multi-core gaming has only recently become popular, and still has a while to go. Even then, the new line did slightly poorer than Intel's i5.
I'm running a Phenom II x6 1100T @ factory clocked settings (3.3 GHz), and never ONCE did I even come CLOSE to 100% CPU usage. The only thing that really has driven it up, is Hammer compiling a very large map with detailed lighting, and that rose it to only 65% usage. A stronger processor is not the only thing you need to worry about when building a PC. If you've got a great processor but a shit graphics card, it's going to lag behind. The exact opposit also proves true. You can spend $400 on the latest graphics card, but if you're still running a dual core you're not going to get the best performance.
could It be steam games for me?
(If your still helping me)
[QUOTE=justin14s;33362944]could It be steam games for me?
(If your still helping me)[/QUOTE]
can someone explain wtf that means?
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;33331465]AMD's Bulldozer line isn't even out to the general public yet, so 8 cores is out of the question, not to mention nobody really needs over 4 cores at the moment. Multi-core gaming has only recently become popular, and still has a while to go. Even then, the new line did slightly poorer than Intel's i5.
I'm running a Phenom II x6 1100T @ factory clocked settings (3.3 GHz), and never ONCE did I even come CLOSE to 100% CPU usage. The only thing that really has driven it up, is Hammer compiling a very large map with detailed lighting, and that rose it to only 65% usage. A stronger processor is not the only thing you need to worry about when building a PC. If you've got a great processor but a shit graphics card, it's going to lag behind. The exact opposit also proves true. You can spend $400 on the latest graphics card, but if you're still running a dual core you're not going to get the best performance.[/QUOTE]
E6600 and a GTX570 will run Skyrim and many other games on Ultra btw ;)
<snip>
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
