Urban Terror Forums: Fix your lag in linux (Guide) - Urban Terror Forums

Jump to content

 Login | Register 
Advertisement
  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Fix your lag in linux (Guide) Rate Topic: -----

some fixes that might help

#11 User is offline   lebbra Icon

  • Account: lebbra
  • Main tag: bw|
  • Country:
  • Joined: 18-March 10
  • Posts: 170

Posted 19 April 2010 - 09:44 AM

View Postmitsubishi, on 12 April 2010 - 12:47 PM, said:

well, but that's opposite of the point of the thread since vsync adds internal delays: visual delays (due to the forcing of lower FPS and vsync methods) and netoworking delays (a side effect of the lower FPS (especially since cl_maxpackets is locked in urt and it will lock at 30 on 60FPS)).


Human eyes can make a difference up to 20 fps, so visual delay between 60 and 120 is careless.
Personally I didn't appreciate any networking delay but if any, it is a secondary issue compared to the huge FPS drop I experienced with VSync off.

Of course if there is a way to keep 125 fps and no drops, it is really welcome, but the above solutions didn't work for me.
aka Dead f.S. - aka |CoN|-=V0l3ur=-, Playing UrT from 2001 - RedCap bot Developer

[img]http://www.dead.it/UrT/logop.png[/img]

#12 User is offline   mitsubishi Icon

  • Account: mitsubishi
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 13,481

Posted 19 April 2010 - 11:20 AM

View Postlebbra, on 19 April 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

Human eyes can make a difference up to 20 fps, so visual delay between 60 and 120 is careless.

That's wrong.

No wait.

That's completely wrong.

http://www.www0.org/...er.3E_FPS.3F.22

and rest document.

[and http://www.www0.org/...7s_frequency.3F]
[and others]

some are sourced directly, some are common sense, but at least i did the study.

cba'ed to re-write it here.

This post has been edited by mitsubishi: 19 April 2010 - 11:24 AM


#13 User is offline   lebbra Icon

  • Account: lebbra
  • Main tag: bw|
  • Country:
  • Joined: 18-March 10
  • Posts: 170

Posted 19 April 2010 - 01:30 PM

View Postmitsubishi, on 19 April 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

That's wrong.

No wait.

That's completely wrong.
...


You are right, 20 fps are good with motion blur. Without motion blur fps must be more. In any case 60 fps are enough.

In any case human reaction to a visual input is around 150-200ms (= 5-7 fps). Even if your eyes (because of game set to 120fps) receive a information 1 or 2 ms before, it is really a sliiiighty improvement if compared with the human reaction time.
Personally I strongly prefer a stable 60fps than a 80-120-40-110...fps, avoiding the disavantage of jerky motion related to the fps drops,

This post has been edited by lebbra: 19 April 2010 - 01:31 PM

aka Dead f.S. - aka |CoN|-=V0l3ur=-, Playing UrT from 2001 - RedCap bot Developer

[img]http://www.dead.it/UrT/logop.png[/img]

#14 User is offline   mitsubishi Icon

  • Account: mitsubishi
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 13,481

Posted 19 April 2010 - 01:40 PM

no, it's not. [enough]

#15 User is offline   cyrus Icon

  • Account: cyrus
  • Main tag: [PCC]
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 105

Posted 22 April 2010 - 05:29 PM

Some time ago, I had stopped trying to get my hardware to push the upper end of the FPS scale. I have capped my FPS at the 65Hz of my display. Here is what I noticed right away:
- Smoother game play. Particularly on maps with huge open spaces. The impact of dropping from 125FPS to 75FPS going from an area of narrow view to a wide open space in a map ceased to be a problem. at 65FPS, I never get hit by that.
If your refresh rate on your display 60 or 65Hz, the extra FPS are being dropped any way. Just because the video adapter can push those FPS does not mean you can see them. Why make the hardware work that hard for no gain? Of course, if you've invested in a display that is capable of 125Hz refresh rate, there may actually be some visual benefit. Otherwise, half of the frames your hardware is rendering are never displayed. I fail to see how the increased FPS improves game play.
Disorder... Chaos... Anarchy... Now THAT's fun!

bullet_loaderAdvertisement

#16 User is offline   ObScUrE Icon

  •   head moderator   
    Co-Chief Community Moderator
  • Account: obscure
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 2,192

Posted 22 April 2010 - 06:09 PM

more fps gives you a lower network latency because of maxpackets this will be better solved in 4.2 with unlocked maxpackets to 125pps instead of 42pps.

Quote

BenQ-XL2420T|Filco-Ninja-TKL-MXRed|Logitech-G403|AKG-K70201000010 01101100 01110101 01110100 01010010 01100001 01110101 00100100 01100011 01101000~The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.~

#17 User is offline   mitsubishi Icon

  • Account: mitsubishi
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 13,481

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:07 PM

The problem here is that some of you haven't grasped the concept of latency due to FPS: The engine doesn't work "fully" and then at some point it just "draws some FPS". The engine works primarily through its FPS. i.e. low FPS? Low input reception, low input dispatching, lower everything. Even if you restrict it visually - which is not [restricted visually] - 60Hz does not mean 61FPS is useless. On the contrary, syncing to it (e.g. with vsync) is significant latency inhibitor and you lose certain chances of better latency even if partially this is restricted by the Hz.

Even if that wasn't enough (which it is), there are certain mechanics that clearly produce latencies actively: e.g. cl_maxpackets is locked to at most 30 on 60 FPS on the current regime. On 125 it goes to 42.

client packets are very related to the latency of your 'hits'.

#18 User is offline   lebbra Icon

  • Account: lebbra
  • Main tag: bw|
  • Country:
  • Joined: 18-March 10
  • Posts: 170

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:06 PM

View Postmitsubishi, on 22 April 2010 - 07:07 PM, said:

The problem here is that some of you haven't grasped the concept of latency due to FPS: ...


You are right. I always tought to FPS in terms of screen fluidity.
But the problem still is: i run linux with a 9800GT, without compiz and i set all the parametet you listed above without any improvement.
After some minutes the game becomes jerky, and the only way to avoid it is to switch vertical sync on. :sad:
I never had this problem until 2 or 3 months ago...

This post has been edited by lebbra: 23 April 2010 - 07:07 PM

aka Dead f.S. - aka |CoN|-=V0l3ur=-, Playing UrT from 2001 - RedCap bot Developer

[img]http://www.dead.it/UrT/logop.png[/img]

#19 User is offline   ObScUrE Icon

  •   head moderator   
    Co-Chief Community Moderator
  • Account: obscure
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 2,192

Posted 24 April 2010 - 01:08 AM

the next lower step from the 125fps=42pps is 83.333fps=41.666pps so try it out.
/com_maxfps 83.333



not sure how it works on linux but for me on windows it works well you have to find out your own value for 's_mixahead' it is fps independant and you will hear distortion when it is set to low.

s_mixahead   "0.04"  // Sets Amount Of Time Music Is Buffered Before It Is Played Default 0.2 Set s_mixahead To 1000 Divided By Your Worst-Case Framerate For Best Performance.
s_mixPreStep "0"     // Set It To 0 If Your Sound Drivers Work Properly Default 0.05




hey mitsu I found something out about:

Quote

CG_OPTIMIZE:
/cg_optimize 1 optimizes client code to reduce number of calculations that predict your interaction
with world between server updates. On low end CPUs this will improve performance.

would it not better for high performance systems to set it on '0' ?

Quote

BenQ-XL2420T|Filco-Ninja-TKL-MXRed|Logitech-G403|AKG-K70201000010 01101100 01110101 01110100 01010010 01100001 01110101 00100100 01100011 01101000~The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.~

#20 User is offline   mitsubishi Icon

  • Account: mitsubishi
  • Country:
  • Joined: 28-February 10
  • Posts: 13,481

Posted 24 April 2010 - 11:23 AM

I wouldn't go with 83.333 that easily. This is because while you get the 'general latency' of simply operating slower [it could be argued on 125 FPS the "general passive latency" is 1000/125 = 8msec], you also don't know if you will drop from 83 and hence simply lose the 41.7. Of course if one sees he 'always' is on 100-110, it might be a better idea.

Quote

cg_optimize

would it not better for high performance systems to set it on '0' ?

I don't know. cg_ is game code and we don't have access to it. [it's not in baseq3]

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Advertisement


Copyright © 1999-2019 Frozensand Games Limited  |  All rights reserved  |  Urban Terror™ and FrozenSand™ are trademarks of Frozensand Games Limited

Frozensand Games is a Limited company registered in England and Wales. Company Reg No: 10343942