Request to DavidM \o/

Everything about Death Ball.

Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One

beefsack
Posts: 921
Joined: 09-03-2003 22:57
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

Post by beefsack »

Image
nameless
Senior Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 23-03-2003 19:44
Contact:

Post by nameless »

would like to play 11on11, but 6on6 hits the limit for me, need a better inetcon for that :(
User avatar
Onge
Senior Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 17-04-2003 13:18

Post by Onge »

UT2K4 does seem to have some performance issues...My FPS can vary on a single map from 80 down to 25...Not an issue with UT2K3...
theberkin8or
Senior Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 09-03-2003 20:41

Post by theberkin8or »

twig 2k4 takes more power than 2k3 mebe try setting you settings down a bit
PHiLø
Posts: 243
Joined: 15-02-2004 01:43
Contact:

Post by PHiLø »

but dont you have to pay for a server via slots, like 10 slots or 12? would be expensive for 22 slot
User avatar
Twigstir
Posts: 756
Joined: 05-04-2003 21:19
Contact:

Post by Twigstir »

theberkin8or wrote: twig 2k4 takes more power than 2k3 mebe try setting you settings down a bit
2k4 runs better than 2k3. 2k4 deathball doesn't. ONS with high settings, 16 -vs- 16, runs better than deathball at much lower settings with far less people.

Even with setting low, FPS in the 80's, and a low ping- there are performance issues.

2k3 deathball was always a performance hog and it turned many people off. I had hoped 2k4 would be better not worse.
Last edited by Twigstir on 29-05-2004 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
[1234]Jr
Posts: 1693
Joined: 19-03-2003 14:52

Post by [1234]Jr »

PHiLø wrote: but dont you have to pay for a server via slots, like 10 slots or 12? would be expensive for 22 slot


I was under the impression DBL's 1 2 and 3 were free :eek:

It's not like 11v11 will catch on...

*insert pX and 3DG joke here*
Omeh
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 24-03-2004 19:26

Post by Omeh »

Jr I never said it would replace 5on5, I just meant to play it maybe once or twice a month. Although if it doesn't work out when we try it then we'll just leave it :)
User avatar
Messy
Posts: 6334
Joined: 01-10-2003 14:37

Post by Messy »

I suggest we at least give it a try (or *you* give it a try..until I finally have UT2k4 ¬_¬)
User avatar
makush
Posts: 124
Joined: 24-03-2003 16:03

Post by makush »

Twigstir wrote: 2k4 runs better than 2k3. 2k4 deathball doesn't. ONS with high settings, 16 -vs- 16, runs better than deathball at much lower settings with far less people.

Even with setting low, FPS in the 80's, and a low ping- there are performance issues.

2k3 deathball was always a performance hog and it turned many people off. I had hoped 2k4 would be better not worse.


In my opinion Deathball 2k4 runs better than 2k3. However, botmatch requires significantly more CPU, but I really can't help it. If you want to make bots play well you have to use lots of CPU power since there are many more things you need to calculate in Deathball than in UT. Probably most CPU intensive part of UT bots is pathing and it's natively done. In Deathball you have to predict ball, calculate passing paths, figure out how to boost peeps etc.

BTW, I don't know is my computer some sort of freak or what, but Deathball runs clearly better than Onslaught on my comp. (Please note also that Deathball "Normal" setting is actually UT "Ultrahigh" setting. DavidM wanted to change them : ) )
User avatar
DavidM
Posts: 6795
Joined: 08-03-2003 20:35
Contact:

Post by DavidM »

normal = all
User avatar
Twigstir
Posts: 756
Joined: 05-04-2003 21:19
Contact:

Post by Twigstir »

Mankush - botmatches play fine. Infact, instant action runs better now than with ut2k3. All performance issues are online play (no bots) with the setting adjusted to desired levels.

The choopy skips in ut2k4 deathball makes ONS feel much better. ONS can be laggy at times but it has much greater detail, more graphical things happening, and more players.

You would think Deathball would run much better than all other UT2k4 gametypes. There is far less detail in the maps and less graphical things happening (weapon effects). I play deathmatch and all other gametypes with high detail. But for deathball, I have to use "no detail" settings which DavidM set the maps to be very very plain. I find this strange and disappointing.

Think online, BR-TwinTombs, 5 vs 5, with all the action going on in the central courtyard. Make it a DB map and performance wise, it doesn't even come close to running as well. Without all the BR weapons and associated effects going on, a DB-twintombs should run better, not far worse. Something about DB is a huge performance hog.
Last edited by Twigstir on 31-05-2004 02:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
makush
Posts: 124
Joined: 24-03-2003 16:03

Post by makush »

Network performance does not depend on graphical details. You can have max details or no details, but you'll still receive and send same amount of network packets. Server does not know anyone's detail settings.

Reason why Deathball is so heavy online is that there's much more network traffic. UT server works by sending you only changes that you can see. In Deathball you basically always see all the changes (=player interactions,movement), so that generates lot of traffic. In onslaught/bombing run etc. you can see only some of the players at certain moment, thus, you'll receive less network flow.
User avatar
Twigstir
Posts: 756
Joined: 05-04-2003 21:19
Contact:

Post by Twigstir »

Since beta4 has been installed on the NA server - Online performance has been much improved. Even played humans against the bots online. The bots are darn good. Nice job.
JarO
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 09-03-2003 05:40

Post by JarO »

i was just playing sc 7on7 (what a mess !) db20 beta 4 and it was working very well, absolutely no lag (no bots too),

was deadly sports ngz-server.de 213.202.197.216:7777
Last edited by JarO on 01-06-2004 18:16, edited 1 time in total.
Locked