Server FPS not going higher than 300

[cookies911]

(07-01-2011, 11:55 PM)dualcore1289 Wrote:  As stated, if the fps is stable, than game play is great. 1000fps is really an overkill, steady or not. a 66-67fps server stable fps will perform better than a 1000fps game server. It's just how the engine is designed. Just like the 66 tick vs 100 tick. With the orangebox engine, 66 tick, 66-67fps is perfect. 100 tick, and 1000fps servers is just a thing for companies to charge out the @$$ for game servers. People claim they are "better" because their minds are believing it. Test a stable 66 tick, 66-67fps server vs a 100 tick/1000fps server, and it will perform just as good if not better.

I did my research. And which companies still charge for 100tick? Could you point me to that?

I play with people that play this game very, very competitively. Some EX CGS, some currently main+ PPT, some ex CPL.

The 66tick vs 100tick debate on orangebox is true, as well as the FPS debate now. Either way though 66FPS surpasses 500FPS by quite a bit, but it doesn't really surpass 1000FPS. The game simply processes entities much faster at 1000FPS, and you can verify this yourself via net_graph 6 "var"

(07-04-2011, 11:13 PM)BehaartesEtwas Wrote:  nevertheless, since the orangebox engine update there is only one reason to run with fps higher than the tickrate: if you cannot exactly match the tickrate with the fps and instead run with fps very slightly above the tickrate, you will get the aliasing effect. that problem is solved when running with sufficient high fps. neither the exact height nor the stability pay any role then. only the fps have to stay above a certain value all the time.

"sufficient high fps" are those where the aliasing effect gets small enough to be safely caught by the client interpolation. that is the case, if the maximum ping variation (not the absolute height!) plus the time between two frames (i.e. inverse server fps) are shorter then the time between two ticks (assuming a cl_interp_ratio of 2). everyone can do the math by himself. ping variations are usually only a couple of milliseconds.

of course I cannot really prove this, but it matches my experience. I strongly suspect that anyone telling something different is subject to the placebo effect. that is nothing to be ashamed off, because that happens quite easily...

I would have to agree with you on this, but it is definitely not a placebo.


At the expense of CPU, you can simply just get that extra edge for your servers. If it wasn't even just the slightist bit true then why are providers linux or windows still running over 66FPS? Well marketing is one. But it does make a difference. Anything higher than 1000-2000FPS is just a waste, as you can tell by the lerp: turning into yellow, the engine doesn't like anything higher than 1000FPS. But comparing 66 to 1000FPS does make a difference. The engine latency is just the same as 66fps, so you can say that it is synchronized with the tick once again, but the var also moves alot faster, thus you can assume the engine is processing more data at once. You do need a beefy CPU to do this though.

Even with the legacy HL2 engine days, a much faster clocked cpu can help fps stability in that regard. X3460s back in the day, and now the E3-1270s.

I can believe what I want, you can believe what you want. I know what's best for me and I'm sticking with it.