Sureshot, there is a misconception that a > 125 FPS player's hitboxes lag behind the player model.
Unfortunately the change was made based upon unsubstantiated rumor and without any testing by the league Admins. The truth is that the > 125 player aim needs to compensate for the acceleration in frames, not vice versa, so there was no inequity (aside from the obvious game speed) given to players with pr0-gayming machines.
I don't agree with the change either, but(t) since I run at an average of 20 fps I didn't bitch too much about it.
At least you can still run 111 if you want. If they capped it at 76, I'm sure there would be a few more people complaining.
I'd love to see some demos of how 16 bit lets you hack. But ah well. The're trying their best. And doing a good job at it. Most people can't complain about the current settings. And a few people can complain about anything. (We all know who we are.)
its absolutley true about the 16 bit with high fov now that its down to 105 i never realy noticed it.. But I can definetly say it does and you wont be able to tell by the demos probably cuase its based on teh hardware / config of the user viewing it not the one of the demo taker.
Also for laged hitboxes Im not sure, but actualy there was a demo and a report written on it with screen shots and diagrams based with diffrent fps all taken off the same server running comp with a few minor changes so you can view the hitboxes ect. I wish I had the link still.
"I'd love to see some demos of how 16 bit lets you hack."
It is absolutely 100% true that with some video cards texturebits 16 (or depthbits 16 was never sure which) lets you see through certain parts of certain walls on maps like assault, beach, tundra and a few others. I know this because after dl'ing PISSCLAMS cfg and starting to use these values I could see through these walls with my Nvidia GF 2mx. After upgrading to my GF fx 5500 OC I no longer was able to see through these walls.
"wtf is it with the cvar on some servers maxing out FPS at 125?
I run at 133. what harm is that?"
Why would you run at 133...Do you not like being able to jump on boxes? The 125 cap should not matter to you...Its the 333 players that have an arguement.
"At least you can still run 111 if you want."
Again why would you run at 111...Do you not like being able to jump on boxes?
You shouldn't be able to jump as high at 133 unless your FPS is actually fluctuating so much you are really hitting 125.
The "magic" numbers for jumping in the Q3 engine are 43, 76, 125, 333 and I don't know past that.
In fact com_maxfps "125" has long been a requirement that groups use when they have trickjumping competitions in q3. People used to have contests where players would basically create movies of their best trickjumps and the demos/movies would be judged. com_maxfps "125" was used as the gold standerd for these competitions because it was widely believed at the time to be the best value for jumping (back then not many people had machines capable of reaching anywhere near 333)
However, a lot of research into the q3 engine lately has turned up anomalys that may account for your ability to jump as high with 133. People's tests have shown that things such as your monitor refresh rate, the server tick rate, certain settings with newer video cards/drivers and a few other factors can somewhat alter the "magic" numbers. Post edited by -opp bigbear- at 3/30/2005 11:04:11 PM
Also none of this research as shown ANY relationship between certain FPS settings and the hitboxes. If you notice no q3 league limits FPS settings and in a game like q3 a matter like lagged hitboxes makes MUCH more of a differnce then in RtCW.
Originally posted by: -opp bigbear- Also none of this research as shown ANY relationship between certain FPS settings and the hitboxes. If you notice no q3 league limits FPS settings and in a game like q3 a matter like lagged hitboxes makes MUCH more of a differnce then in RtCW.
Since the netcode is so different from Q3, RtCW (and ET) are, for this issue, not the same. There's even differences between ET and RtCW.
I'm still watching this debate. Some very good points are being made. So far, I have yet to see any true empirical evidence of max_fps in wolf having negative game-play effects. If anyone has evidence of this, please let me know. TWL|V1X3N TeamWarfare Competition Manager
Email: v1x3n@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_rtcw
I appreciate you being open Vixen, from my perspective the way this whole thing went down was like this-
A Euro site posted some study that looked good up front, showing hitboxes appearing to lag behind player models who were running > 133 fps.
Myself and the other CAL Admins saw the study, but before we could determine it's validity, someone had gone to Citizen and convinced him to update the Speakeasy servers with the pb_cvar to limit the fps. (I don't know 100% who it was, but I bet I could guess).
Regardless, at that point, we had to make a decision b/c our league season was starting and the Speakeasys have long been the backbone of the Competitive RtCW community. This was the first time that a Speakeasy was NOT running the official league config.
We had in front of us some official looking study saying that > 125 fps was bad (in the middle of Hack-Gate where everyone and their dad was being caught hacking). We had the league servers running a config with the cvar enforced, and I couldn't get ahold of Citizen to save my life, so we went ahead and changed our config to follow suite, max fps was now enforced. I can't speak for the folks here at TWL but I assume the same situation transpired.
Looking back I think it was a rush to judgement and I think that having studied the "study" more I have found flaws in their work. My position is that FPS should not be limited and that I need to get Citizen to pull that CVAR!!
Thanks for the reply, PC. That's exactly the info we needed. I haven't seen this study for myself, so I will take your word on it. I'll see if I can get to Citizen (or the one that has his ear) and talk to him about it.
^c0ff1: I personally have run at 333FPS latched and there is a definate difference. I understand that scientists (and those that wanna be scientists) say it doesn't make a difference. There are many other factors to consider here though. One is the overall smoothness of the game at high FPS. Wheather your eyes can tell the difference is one thing, but you can for sure tell a difference in the overall game experience. TWL|V1X3N TeamWarfare Competition Manager
Email: v1x3n@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_rtcw
You dont necessarily CI at anything greater than 333.
Back before the force, I would uncap my FPS on base and go up to 800 inside. The CI's would happen often, but not all the time. It's not true "Connection Interrupted", your bullets still register and whatnot.
And as far as the "hitbox lag" for 333: not true. Sorry, its not.
The person USING 333 fps does not have odd hitboxes: the people he is SHOOTING at have weird hitboxes. So while you have a speed advantage at 333, your OPPONENTS HITBOXES will be incorrect, NOT your hitboxes.