Are NWValues affected by umsg.PoolString?

Say for instance I have a NWBool called “Locked” which is true and a NWString called “VehicleName” which is “citron7cv”. The first var changes a lot and the second one is regularly set to that value on various different entities.
If I pool the strings “Locked”, “VehicleName” and “citron7cv”, will my networking overhead lower?

Why don’t you try it?

Although I’m pretty sure that NWVars’ names are already pooled.

Because I don’t know how to calculate the networking overhead. :>

NWVars are a wrapper for usmgs, so I’m pretty sure it will work fine.

Well, even if you don’t know how to calculate it, you could always look at net_graph in single player :wink:
Also what Gbps said.

Wouldn’t it be pretty dumb to not have this done by default then?

[lua]a = {
“qwertyuiopqwertyuiopqwertyuiopqwertyuiopqwertyuiopqwertyuiopqwertyuiop”,
“asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;asdfghjkl;”,
“zxcvbnm,./zxcvbnm,./zxcvbnm,./zxcvbnm,./zxcvbnm,././zxcvbnm,././zxcvbnm,./s”};
i = 1;
function doincrement()
i = i + 1;
if (i > 3) then
i = 1;
end
end
timer.Create(“dotransfers”,0.5,0,function()
local ply = Entity(1);
doincrement();
ply:SetNWString(“String1”,a*);
doincrement();
ply:SetNWString(“String2”,a*);
doincrement();
ply:SetNWString(“String3”,a*);
doincrement();
end);
concommand.Add(“poolnames”,function()
umsg.PoolString(“String1”);
umsg.PoolString(“String2”);
umsg.PoolString(“String3”);
end);
concommand.Add(“poolcontents”,function()
for i = 1, 3 do
umsg.PoolString(a*);
end
end);
[/lua]
No decernable change.
Looks like I’ll have to go for preshared keys as much as possible to cut down overhead. :confused: