Server Side FPS

[joe.powell]

Hi everyone!

First things first, I have seen alot of threads about 1000fps servers, or even 1000fps+ servers.

As it has been shown before, its rather pointless, in fact the server feels horrible (from a CS:S) perspective.

Keeping the server running at a stable level is far better, any your users will see this.

It is also something to be said, that this can be achieved on relatively low performance hardware.

Were currently running;

CPU: Intel Core i3 530 (2.93ghz) (2 Physical 2 HT Cores)
Ram: 4GB DDR3 (bog standard stuff)
HDD/Storage: 2x 500GB WD HDD's (Os on one, server files on the other)

Network: 100mbit connection (at data center)

This machine runs, 24/7 with a daily restart, running a standard install of Windows Server 2008. A few un-needed services have been disabled.

The end result is.




As you can see, the server is stable all the time, even with players joining and leaving, granted this is considered a 'match server'.

However, we have 3 of these and 2 TF2 servers running on this machine, as well as voice servers holding over 100 players 90% of the time

TL-DR - Don't worry about getting 1000fps, get a solid server setup, and work to keep that server side FPS stable, and your users wont be complaining.

[click4dylan]

this is absolute retardation to have the FPS at 66. with 66 frames per second the server is refreshing every whopping 15 ms. that means you are adding an additional 15ms of delay across the board which will significantly destroy hit detection and provide an overall laggy experience. if a server was only running at 66 fps i would disconnect instantly. the default update rate on source is 4ms which is a good compromise between processor usage and performance (250 fps). 2ms would be optimal (500 fps) while a 1ms delay (1000 fps) would provide the best performance. over 1000 fps completely sacrifices all power savings for maximum performance with sub 1ms speeds. If your server is getting between 600-1000 fps (1.0-1.7 ms) you will NEVER notice the difference in fluctuation and you will still get a much better experience. Now for goldsrc (HL1) based games, i would never advise increasing the frame rate past the default 100 fps as the tick rate is tied into the fps and increasing it will cause very bad erratic behavior in precise calculations such as AI, rotating objects, etc.

[Mike]

Uhm... I think you've mixed up srcds and hlds.. Srcds is supposed to be running with 66.67 fps because it is optimized for it. It's best to run with fps matching the tickrate, but if you can't get it stable at 66.67 fps then you should run with 250 - 300 fps because it doesn't matter so much if the fps drops.

Edit: And for hlds it is best to run with 1000 fps but never over that.

[click4dylan]

(06-17-2011, 06:10 PM)michael_sj123 Wrote:  Uhm... I think you've mixed up srcds and hlds.. Srcds is supposed to be running with 66.67 fps because it is optimized for it. It's best to run with fps matching the tickrate, but if you can't get it stable at 66.67 fps then you should run with 250 - 300 fps because it doesn't matter so much if the fps drops.

Edit: And for hlds it is best to run with 1000 fps but never over that.

you're completely wrong. fps has nothing to do with tick rate. the tick rate is the amount of updates a client can receive at one time (not including the physical simulation etc), while the frame rate is how often it checks for updates. a faster frame rate will allow the server to process command packets faster than a lower frame rate. and HLDS should always be at 100 fps since the tick rate is locked with the frame rate and increasing over 100 is only useful if you want more than 100 updates a second. i've spent years disassembling the goldsrc engine to know how the frame rates work on it

[Mike]

Well, i suggest you read around in these forums.

[TacoBoner]

The Truth: Higher FPS, better Reg. smoother Gameplay

But also if you take in consideration other people who run servers off of not so strong pc's and if they try to run a 1000FPS server on say only a dual core. it may be smoother at times, but as more people join and more things are going on in the server, people will lag and pings will spike. SO for someone who uses a dually it would be in better interests to run the 66fps server so not so much work is put on the cpu so people get cleaner gameplay and better reg.

[Mike]

Sigh... Pre-orangebox srcds was supposed to be running with as high tickrate, fps as possible (1000), but now the tickrate is locked for a reason. FPS should be matching the tickrate.

[joe.powell]

(06-19-2011, 03:54 AM)michael_sj123 Wrote:  Sigh... Pre-orangebox srcds was supposed to be running with as high tickrate, fps as possible (1000), but now the tickrate is locked for a reason. FPS should be matching the tickrate.

This.

Does no-body read the forums anymore?

Its been pretty well established that it is the done thing to run (fps=tickrate) since orangebox.

[Mike]

Finally someone who gets it in this thread.

[BehaartesEtwas]

yes. fps equal tickrate is most optimal, but do not run with only slightly higher fps than the tickrate (e.g. 68 fps at tickrate 66 is bad - better run with 64 fps then!). if you cannot achieve this run with 200~300 fps, stability and exact height is not so important then (but it has to be always at least ~200 fps, also during extreme battle!). and since orangebox there is no need for higher tickrates. tick 66 and 66 fps is better than tick 100 and 1000 fps (or even higher) before the OB update. I double-blind tested this accidentally during the beta phase (because I did not notice the reduced tickrate for several days at first)!