Info about server FPS

[ariel]

If this turns out to be true it could change a lot about cs:s servers in the near future I saw this thread on the cal forums which confirmed my suspicions about server FPS: http://forums.caleague.com/showthread.php?t=208319

Basically some guy got in contact with one of the head developers for cs:s who wrote the netcode and asked him a few questions. In particular he asked him exactly what server FPS was, there was a debate as to wether it meant frames per second or server response time or faster packet switching. It means frames per second and it was confirmed that all excess frames over 100 (the max tic rate) are ghosts, aka nothing is done with them.

This means a 2000 FPS scrim server that some companies are marketing are calculating and wasting 1900 frames for every 100 frames that are actually used. The server companies have pushed the limit on FPS when it essentially means nothing so they can charge saps more for their servers and make them think they are getting a better deal. The only important thing about FPS is that a.) it stays above 100 at all times and b.) server FPS should be consistent as possible. Having a 100FPS server would be shit because frames will drop when the server process information so you need enough room to prevent it from dropping below 100. For all purposes it would be safe to say that 250-500 frames will provide an excessive amount of headroom.

THe perceived difference in server quality comes from a combo of factors. Half id say is mental, highger # must be better, paying more, must be better. The rest is probably a combo of routing issues and overloading boxes. Since 1000 FPS servers use more CPU resources than 250-500 there will be fewer servers per box.

Now i have servers running at 500FPS and im not about to drop them just because they are running fine we have a box and have plenty of resources available but I definitely wouldnt go out and pay for a 1000/2000 FPS server id even like to look more at the differences between 500 and 250 tic servers (so long as servers remain uncrowded on boxes)

i havent checked other providers but nfo charges an extra 40 bucks a month for an upgrade from a 250 to a 2000 fps server, and 20$ for an upgrade from 250 to 500




its possible this uy faked the email but doubtful, mike is one of the lead netcode developers and there wouldnt be much point in posting this except for to hurt server companies

[Labyrinthine]

It's true. It has been true. People have known about this for a long time. Nothing has changed.

More or less, past 100 fps, server fps is essentially worthless. If you had a 100fps server which you could make run at 100 fps all the time (it would never dip) then there is no point for higher FPS. Higher FPS only provides a buffer zone.

At the same time, the engine does feel different between server fps, which is why 500 is often preferred for privates, even though there is no tangible benefit. It's all marketing, psychological benefit, and 'feel-goods' which make anyone buy anything over 250/333.

Anywho, I wrote all about this in my SRCDS Tech article back in the summer; included that same screenshot as well.

[ariel]

ah didnt see the date on the original post, never saw that before or saw it described the same way