Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:13 pm
by hemostick
Oeloe wrote:@Legrand: people are still playing 1.16n online though. Somehow they prefer it so it must be playable enough.
I'm willing to bet that more often than not, people who really stick to outdated versions just don't know better (sometimes don't even know there have been updates) or go by the motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (even with blatant bugs). Or maybe they did try updates, but some of the changes would adversely affect performance on their machine and they'd go back.
Some also stick around for the arguably easier competition (consciously or not), or because they can hack easier.
I have a few friends who were really into SOF2, and kinda stopped because they were really getting above their (limited) opposition, while commonly receiving cheating accusations.
I asked one to check in his console if punkbuster was enabled - sure enough, he was running the
retail version - the thought there would be an update that most people and servers would be running never occured to him.
A few times a year, there's always someone that pops up on forums asking why they get "server uses protocol 68".
I've seen people drop 1.32 because of punkbuster killing their 125fps. One flat out said he preferred playing on demo servers to bash newbies.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:19 pm
by Fjoggs
hemo: newbs i say!
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:42 pm
by Bueller
Oeloe wrote:Usually FPS take a drop when taking a screenshot, because of the hdd and cpu activity, but in some the shown FPS number increases. You see 100+ FPS sometimes during map load times, don't you (in SP at least)?
I havent played single player so I can't speak for that. But when loading a map while playing online, I have seen my fps drop to 25. But like I said before, during gameplay when I take screenshots I see anywhere from 60-70 and sometimes higher and I havent used any commands in my cfg to uncap.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:11 am
by MidnightQ4
riddla wrote:I'll definitely say that Q4 should have been released a full year later than it was.
yep. but then it would look sad cause UT2k7 would be kicking it's ass, at least in the graphics dept.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:26 am
by Lenard
Here's to lesbians.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:02 pm
by ^misantropia^
Bueller wrote:Oeloe wrote:Bueller wrote:I have 60-70 fps regardless of the amount of players on the server.
You mean a steady 63 (at which the FPS are capped)?
No I mean when I take a screenshot it says anything between 60 and 70. I know the game is supposed to be capped but the screenshot says different. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
I suspect id's FPS calculation code looks something like this:
Code: Select all
int pre_render_time = get_time_in_ms();
render_frame(); // render one frame to the screen
int post_render_time = get_time_in_ms();
int render_time = post_render_time - pre_render_time; // time in ms it took to render
int fps = 1000 / render_time;
- render_time = 16 ms, fps = 62
- render_time = 15 ms, fps = 66
- render_time = 14 ms, fps = 71
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:04 pm
by Oeloe
hemostick wrote:Oeloe wrote:@Legrand: people are still playing 1.16n online though. Somehow they prefer it so it must be playable enough.
I'm willing to bet that more often than not, people who really stick to outdated versions just don't know better (sometimes don't even know there have been updates) or go by the motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (even with blatant bugs).
Some people prefer to play Freeze Tag in 1.16n for some reason. Somehow they like the feeling of that version better.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:31 am
by JuanSanchez
1.16n is the PR for the Dreamcast isn't it?
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:00 am
by Oeloe
My Q3 cd installs 1.16n, so, no. There was a DC map pack with the files necessary to play against DC players though.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:20 am
by MKJ
if your q3 cd installs 1.16 its prolly the gold version?
out of the box it was 1.10 im sure
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:04 pm
by ^misantropia^
The gold version installs PR 1.30.