Again, do some research. It has been discussed at length and your questions answered many times over. On May 2, 2013 8:05 PM, "Timur 'grammaton' Celikkesen" <gramma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is really dissapointing that users like Absurd Minds can divert this > list from its intended use again in such an easy way. Please sort out your > private problems that you have with Glenn Charpantier somewhere else – not > here. > > You are again not contributing to this specific issue which is > unfortunately not the first time and even more, you try to bash Glenn in a > very childish way – this is not constructive or factual. Additional your > response to the topic shows an obvious lack of technical knowledge and > willingness to accept the public facts i listed before. > > If you are able to show us here one single technical proof for your > response to the topic, which is transparent and conclusive – fine – but > just dont write any subjective personal opinion without any substance. > > Even your arguement that this is a list for server-admins that want help > with their problems and dont want to discuss, shows a real lack of > dispassion. > This rubberband behaviour IS a problem for the hosters and admins – it > results in many support-tickets from users that are not following lists > like this or community sites where this is already a huge topic. > > @Joseph Lopez > > Both can be related, so if you just unobjectively write to screw tickrate > – you are also screwing the problem that seems to be most important to you. > > As i understand the explaination for this server cvar and its intended way > to work – there is no bug that valve has to fix – it is a matter of > Serverperformance, Clientperformance and the connectivity/network quality > between both. > > Through the community Site i am running i have access to hundreds, > sometimes thousands of users and their direct experience, the Bugs and > Problems showing up after each update – and by that we also have the > posibility to test on many different server setups, with various routings > and hardware performances. > > We testet a lot related to the new server-cvar and as i expected on tick > 64 almost nobody experiences this rubberband behaviour. Only Clients with a > real poor network performance or frame-drops towards or under 64 still > experience it. > > Switch the Server to tick 128 and the game starts to have this rubberband > “lag” clientside (with vanilla settings on 3) > > ...and i think we all can be sure about, that it is more common that > clients drop around or under 128 frames than 64 frames. > > Sry for this textwall but sometimes you just cant put it in just one or > two sentences to explain your point. > > > Cheers > > > *From:* Joseph Lopez <lopezj...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2013 1:05 AM > *To:* csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > *Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] csgo update > > screw tickrate. im worried about the lag issue / rubberbandlag. > hopefully this is fixed soon > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Drogen Viech > <drogenvi...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> So what arguments do you have besides "LOL THE OTHER THREADS SAY HIGHER >> TICKRATE IS BETTER"? >> >> >> 2013/5/3 Absurd Minds <goabs...@absurdminds.net> >> >>> Thanks for subscribing me to a bunch of spam. >>> On May 2, 2013 6:02 PM, "Absurd Minds" <goabs...@absurdminds.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Check the other threads about why higher tickrates are better. We don't >>>> have to discuss it in a mailing list where server operators get help with >>>> their servers. >>>> >>>> Also, you should like you're still butthurt. I sincerely apologize for >>>> causing you to embarrass yourself so fully a few months ago. >>>> On May 2, 2013 5:35 PM, "Glenn Charpantier" <gl...@candrom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Please stop." >>>>> >>>>> You are (yet again) not contributing with your message, instead you >>>>> just uselessly spammed tons of inboxes. >>>>> >>>>> It is indeed a legitimate question, and in the right place. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 02.05.2013, at 23:31, Absurd Minds <goabs...@absurdminds.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Please stop. >>>>> On May 2, 2013 5:24 PM, "Timur 'grammaton' Celikkesen" < >>>>> gramma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the past Valve argued in a very reasonable way why they forced >>>>>> the tickrates for other Source-Engine Games. >>>>>> >>>>>> We also know from the CS:GO changelog that we already had Bugs >>>>>> related to Tickrates higher than 64. >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the causal conclusions from Vitalys explaination could be that >>>>>> it is generally better to leave it on 64. >>>>>> >>>>>> Valve is running their own Servers on Tickrate 64. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the question is why are the logical arguments for other >>>>>> Source-Engine Games not taken into consideration for CS:GO? >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately the last real information regarding netcode is more >>>>>> than a year old (a tweet from Chet Faliszek via the csgo_dev Account) and >>>>>> that CS:GO uses an updated Version from the Netcode done by Kirsch (who >>>>>> also did the original Code for 1.6) >>>>>> >>>>>> If this “updated” means that arguments for other source-engine games >>>>>> are not effective for CS:GO and that documentation like the Latency >>>>>> Compensation Methods from Bernier or other older informations from Kirsch >>>>>> are obsolete related to this specific subject... i am fine with that... >>>>>> >>>>>> I just want to know where is the technical difference between other >>>>>> Source-Engine Games and CS:GO >>>>>> >>>>>> So please stay cool....it’s generally just a legitimate question >>>>>> after reading Vitalys Mail ....not an attempt to start an unnecessary >>>>>> discussion ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> *From:* Saul Rennison <saul.renni...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:56 PM >>>>>> *To:* csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] csgo update >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's not start a "discussion" on tick rate, please! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Timur 'grammaton' Celikkesen < >>>>>> gramma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is really a very good explaination and as i understand it – >>>>>>> you can take this also as an argument to finally force CS:GO to a >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> tickrate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was always a bit confused why the argumentation for the tickrate >>>>>>> 66 force at CS:S (which is logical) was not used for CS:GO (with 64 >>>>>>> Ticks). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Related to this i want to call up one specific point in a previous >>>>>>> changelog... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Limiting physics timestep to 64 to eliminate high tickrate physics >>>>>>> bugs, such as bouncing guns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As long as you give the choice to select the tickrate, the community >>>>>>> will always choose the higher value – regardless if it makes sense or >>>>>>> not. >>>>>>> The competative part of the community will always discuss about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...but as we all should remember.......it took just some few days >>>>>>> after the tickrate force or fps cap... to end years of unnecessary >>>>>>> discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> just my 2 cents >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Vitaliy Genkin <vita...@valvesoftware.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 6:56 PM >>>>>>> *To:* csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] csgo update >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The value for *sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks* specifies maximum user >>>>>>> commands that server will handle from a client in a single server frame >>>>>>> tick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E.g. if you run a 128-tick server with max 3 usr cmds per tick, but >>>>>>> your client runs at sub-64 fps then the client might experience >>>>>>> incorrect >>>>>>> prediction on movement and what you refer to as “lag”. The solutions >>>>>>> here >>>>>>> would be to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) disable the user commands limit completely on the server with >>>>>>> *sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks >>>>>>> 0* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would use old behavior and allows clients with any low >>>>>>> framerate or high packet loss to fully execute all queued up movement >>>>>>> packets on the server and allows clients to maliciously inject >>>>>>> additional >>>>>>> movement packets for execution on the server thus possibly attaining a >>>>>>> higher than maximum movement speed or movement speed bursts observed by >>>>>>> other players. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) increase the user commands limit to allow slack for clients >>>>>>> running with low fps with e.g. *sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks 16* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The higher the value the higher “movement burst speed” can be >>>>>>> observed by other clients and can be attained on a single server tick >>>>>>> by a >>>>>>> cheater or user with severe packet loss or low fps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When running 64-tick server with default setting of max 3 user >>>>>>> commands per server tick clients might observe incorrect prediction on >>>>>>> movement when running with sustained fps below 25 fps or when running >>>>>>> at 64 >>>>>>> fps but dropping 30% of packets or a combination of these unfavorable >>>>>>> conditions. Even when a local client encounters incorrect prediction on >>>>>>> movement all other players in the server still see their movement as >>>>>>> smooth >>>>>>> and from other players’ perspective the movement speed is always within >>>>>>> max >>>>>>> movement speed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To diagnose the case of clients being affected by the setting of max >>>>>>> user commands you can use “sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks_warning” convar, >>>>>>> setting it to 0 will spew all server ticks and clients for whom user >>>>>>> commands are being dropped, setting it to 1 will spew no more than 1 >>>>>>> message per second, setting it to default -1 disables the spew. Once you >>>>>>> narrow it down to the client you can disable competitive min spec on the >>>>>>> server and capture the client statistic with “net_graph 5” on the >>>>>>> client. >>>>>>> Let us know if you encounter clients running at sustained fps >= server >>>>>>> tickrate without any packet loss that experience dropped user commands >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> we’ll be able to investigate further from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Vitaliy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* csgo_servers-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: >>>>>>> csgo_servers-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] *On Behalf Of *Loïc >>>>>>> Péron >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:23 AM >>>>>>> *To:* csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] csgo update >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks "3" makes players lag when moving.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *sv_maxusrcmdprocessticks "0" fix it.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>>>>>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>>>>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>>>>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>>>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>>>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Csgo_servers mailing list >>> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Csgo_servers mailing list >> Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com >> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >> > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Csgo_servers mailing list > Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers > > _______________________________________________ > Csgo_servers mailing list > Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers >
_______________________________________________ Csgo_servers mailing list Csgo_servers@list.valvesoftware.com https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
