Server FPS not going higher than 300

[baijiaqing]

After the new tf2 update

Code:

Source Engine Changes (CS:S, DoD:S, TF2, HL2:DM)
Reduced CPU usage for idle servers

Team Fortress 2
Added the Splendid Screen, Ali Baba's Wee Booties, and the Mantreads to the whitelist for Medieval mode
Added a server console message when a player is sent to the server via the matchmaking system
Fixed the cl_gameserver_list output
Fixed the Quick-Fix showing the fire overlay when running in DX8
Fixed a problem with team paints not being displayed properly when playing
Fixed a display problem with Hatless hats
Fixed a problem that prevented the new Scout items from being used in crafting recipes
Fixed a problem with clients seeing the incorrect vote options after changing servers
Fixed the backpack image for the Schadenfreude not being disabled when using paint
Updated the Planeswalker Goggles to not hide the Scout's hat/headset
Updated the taunt items to be nameable
Updated the localization files

i noticed that my server's fps is not going beyond 300 before the update it was at 512 any help on this?
fps_max is set to 600 to all servers i have also tried 0
P.S. Im running windows server 2003 x64 standard

[lol554]

You don't need a higher fps, i would recommend you to set fps_max to 70

[unrealized]

Also getting this issue. Server 2003 x86

[Moleculo]

i have same problem 900fps -> 550fps

[lol554]

Due to the yesterday's update, the FPS are now locked at a maximum of 500.

[wander_jarra]

(06-29-2011, 04:56 PM)lol554 Wrote:  Due to the yesterday's update, the FPS are now locked at a maximum of 500.

So how to fix it ??? i was using the High time priority multimedia enabler - but, not working anymore.

i´m not confident to hex edit files like it was posted on over 1000 fps topic.

Please any clue are great.

[Qrush]

(06-29-2011, 04:56 PM)lol554 Wrote:  Due to the yesterday's update, the FPS are now locked at a maximum of 500.

Are you sure? My server fps is reaching 560-570 but it's very unstable. (Did go higher before the update) Very often it get back to 500 but never sinks below.

[cookies911]

It has to do with the new valve update.

Valve is going to be removing FPS code anyways fairly soon.

[BrutalGoerge]

wow what a pointless tweak.
66>1000000 server fps aint guna make a bit of difference in game
just so greedy server hosts can rip off dumb customers with TURBO BOOSTED 1000 FPS SERVER HURR HURR HURR

[cookies911]

(07-01-2011, 10:53 AM)BrutalGoerge Wrote:  wow what a pointless tweak.
66>1000000 server fps aint guna make a bit of difference in game
just so greedy server hosts can rip off dumb customers with TURBO BOOSTED 1000 FPS SERVER HURR HURR HURR

Actually you're wrong. It does make a difference, Only if the fps is stable. 66 compared to 500, 66 is better. 66 compared to 1000FPS 1000FPS surpasses 66, not much though.

If you been playing competitive css for over 3-4 years now main+, then you will know.

Though it uses alot more cpu. That being said. This tweak allows you run at 1000FPS again, instead of the 550 unstable cap made by valve.

[BehaartesEtwas]

(07-01-2011, 05:20 PM)cookies911 Wrote:  66 compared to 1000FPS 1000FPS surpasses 66, not much though.

actually that part is not true, at least not, if the 66 fps are really stable and not actually 67 fps or so. especially there is no, really no, difference between 500 and 1000 fps...

[dualcore1289]

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.

[Monk]

(07-01-2011, 05:20 PM)cookies911 Wrote:  

(07-01-2011, 10:53 AM)BrutalGoerge Wrote:  wow what a pointless tweak.
66>1000000 server fps aint guna make a bit of difference in game
just so greedy server hosts can rip off dumb customers with TURBO BOOSTED 1000 FPS SERVER HURR HURR HURR

Actually you're wrong. It does make a difference, Only if the fps is stable. 66 compared to 500, 66 is better. 66 compared to 1000FPS 1000FPS surpasses 66, not much though.

If you been playing competitive css for over 3-4 years now main+, then you will know.

Though it uses alot more cpu. That being said. This tweak allows you run at 1000FPS again, instead of the 550 unstable cap made by valve.

You're wrong for telling people they are wrong. There is no technical evidence that the engine does anything better with more non-working frames. If there is technical evidence, please provide a peer reviewable research paper showing your results. Your logic is cum hoc ergo propter hoc

There is no evidence that all of those wasted frames do anything at all except chew CPU power. None at all.

[BehaartesEtwas]

(07-04-2011, 10:45 PM)Monk Wrote:  If there is technical evidence, please provide a peer reviewable research paper showing your results.

although I agree with you regarding the influence of high fps: you cannot expect people to have such kind of proof. the engine is closed source, so there is no way of writing research papers (and regarding a peer review: no scientific journal would ever accept such paper - there is simply no scientific benefit from finding out how valve coded some part of the engine).

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...

[Monk]

(07-04-2011, 11:13 PM)BehaartesEtwas Wrote:  

(07-04-2011, 10:45 PM)Monk Wrote:  If there is technical evidence, please provide a peer reviewable research paper showing your results.

although I agree with you regarding the influence of high fps: you cannot expect people to have such kind of proof. the engine is closed source, so there is no way of writing research papers (and regarding a peer review: no scientific journal would ever accept such paper - there is simply no scientific benefit from finding out how valve coded some part of the engine).

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...

Peer review, meaning, something that can be looked over by peers. I've written dozens of papers for college and independent journals, I've written anticheat physiological papers and technical anticheat papers. But that's irrelevant. Regardless of what you've said, telling someone "x feels smother because of y, therefor x is the cause of y" is not a logical conclusion. It's not even considered evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The entire premise for the entire FPS nonsense is simply 'Non causa pro causa'

Just because something is closed source, doesn't mean it cannot be subjected to review/reverse engineering. That's why we have the wonderful world of reading and writing to memory. FPS isn't as important as other things, and VALVes long term planes are to get rid of FPS anyways (YES!) so this nonsense will stop.