C-D Blocks Interp

[helloworld]

er yes .05 heh. The issue with interp I belive is it does not act the same across all connections. I own a PCbang and I have seen it not matter at all, and I have also seen it result in the hail marry I was aiming 5 feet beind him headshot. The problem ends up being a case of "noone knows exactly what the problem is, so accuse the non default". To me it seems that enforcing .1 is the simplist way to end a discussion that Is even at its most informed, going to be flawed by the fact none of the discussers has access to the code. Plenty of amazing players don't use a changed value, I think most can live without it. I do not buy into the "it is a variable to be changed" crap either. From a developer standpoint at end of cycle you will have hundreds of settings and 90% of them you will flat out not want changed. They get left because on a rare occasion a person may need them to fix a problem. However it does not mean that it was there to play with, and that it will not nesissarily lead to unfair advantages. I also do not go by summer blue, because in the past and even know they have made claims in their reports that are basless and untrue or uninformed.



All this aside, try playing with an interp of 5 next to a friend and watch the delay, woooo.

[Pharlap]

i use a script that gets past wwcl, because i dont want an admin telling me what settings i should use. and i found this line in it:



---------------------

ex_interp "0.025" // ( 0.1 ) calculating player position in ms, lower value = model position differs from real position

---------------------



you can straight away see that even the person that wrote the wwcl blocking script hasnt got a clue what ex_interp does. calculalted in ms? err no, seconds i think you will find. model position differs from 'real' position? err, the exact opposite infact, lower value, model position is CLOSER ot the real position.

[bloody newbies just want something to whine/complain about]

[MechanimaL]

id love to play with 0.05 if it was not BUGGED. most of you pro-interp-changers forgot this.



changing the value remains lame until they ve fixed this issue.

[Drakmare]

I really dont see what bugs u guys are talking about. I first learned of ex_interp recently and while using it I have noticed the difference. For instance. I like to snipe, I will go out on a limb and say I am quite a good sniper wether it be awp or scout. With default values I have HS somone countless times with out actually hitting the model. Like when they run across the tunnel opening on italy. I will shoot but be late and hit behind them yet I get the kill?? ORRRRRR I will get a direct hit on the head and miss? I now use .025 as my setting. My shots are close to dead on. I hit the head they die, I miss they dont. I see alot less BS in the game with my own aim then I ever have. This variable has not magically made me a leet player but it has cut out the bs kills I get by a ton. Now I get real aimed kills instead of just luck.



Some of you say "There are plenty of skilled players who use the default setting" Well if you think about it, with the default setting they are actually getting kills by killing the person without actually shooting at the model. So are the people who use the default setting really skilled or just lucky? Thats def something to scratch your head about.



This variable does not magically enlarge the hitboxes by 100 and make it super easy to kill people. Its just a matter of model/hit box coordination. I really dont see what everyone is crying about!



Insomniac-



Yes I am being updated at a 100, but remember its just me using the setting if everyone in my server decided to raise there update rate my server surely wouldnt handle the load Im just glad 90% of the players dont know what net_code is much less cl_updaterate or cl_cmdrate Some people actually come into my server and set their rates to 99999999 when the server is capped at 7500, they have actually convinced themselves it does something. I just sit back and smile :)

[Pharlap]

Edited by [user="3256"] @ [time="1054022861"]

drakmere,

yes most people dont know that when you increase your cl_updaterate and cl_cmdrate, youre actually putting extra load on the server. oh well.



as for the ex_interp argument, i want to conclude that the HL netcode was made for dialup and high latency users (200ms+), its an old outdated netcode. if valve wants to update it, they must write a new netcode from the bottom up, not just tweak the current one.

lets hope HL2 will get rid of these type of siliness. but i can just imagine that when HL2/CS2 comes out, spotty teens will shout 'this sux, CS1 was better!!!11'....



-out.

[Ravenium]

Um...this calls for a history lesson. The netcode has been revised once, maybe twice, in a total overhaul. It remains in fact THE best netcode for online gaming. Anyone who has played bf 1942 or the like can probably attest to this :) Granted the revisions in beta 6 were made for higher latency users, but this IS why the game can be played with 150 ms latency and look decent. Not that any of us WANT to, of course.



Last I'd heard, the relation of ex_interp to other variables made it best set at .1 or whatnot, otherwise that's where you get the glitching and such. It's not as simple as "it makes it more accurate". In fact, it's probably a sad side effect of having the lifeline of this game extended for so long that people can actually have 50 post discussions on a network variable they never should have ever SEEN, much less cared about. Just think, time better spent enjoying the GAME.



Which brings me to the next part of the rant. It's a game, people. You know, that thing you play for fun when you're not in school or your actual job? Yeah, sorry if I just shattered the myth of a "professional" gamer, but the concept of doing "research" into your game should make just about anyone laugh. Sure, we do research when we want to find out how to fix a bug in a game, or perhaps we read up if we want to find some really neat way to do something better in game. Whoever that was above makes it sound like legal research. Anyone who uses the words "serious" and "game" in the same sentence needs to turn off their computer and find a good book, possibly go jogging or something.



Anyhow, just my pre-coffee rants. Sorry if that was a wee bit bitter :)

[Steakeater]

Edited by [user="32017"] @ [time="1054069836"]

I think it's odd that ex_interp is blocked when the bigshots on the UA forums have consistently and specifically said that Cheating-Death won't muck with ex_ variables.



From the UA forums from EKS:

Please not[e] that some things have been suggested before... Blocking ex_ variables. - Reply: No.

[Pharlap]

ravenium,

nice post, even though ive done much research into the area, i honestly dont give a shit! lol, might sound weird. i play with ex_interp = 0.1, and i play fine with it. i have no complaints really about the netcode, as far as im concerned, i have no major issues with it.

like you pointed out, valve shouldve masked out those variables a long time ago. i know its just a game, but i just want to give this ex_interp thing a proper treatment it deserves :)

in my life i do plenty of research (mainly for academic purposes). if you know anything about Surface Acoustic Waves in copper conductors, youll know how boring that can get. this gaming research is nice and light for me :)



-out

[mouth]

Ravenium wrote..

Um...this calls for a history lesson. The netcode has been revised once, maybe twice, in a total overhaul. It remains in fact THE best netcode for online gaming. Anyone who has played bf 1942 or the like can probably attest to this :) Granted the revisions in beta 6 were made for higher latency users, but this IS why the game can be played with 150 ms latency and look decent. Not that any of us WANT to, of course.

A) The shitty netcode of BF1942 makes HL's look good by comparison, which means dick.



B) Quakeworld. Stick that in your "history lesson" and smoke it.



C) The game can be played with 150 ping and look "decent" for...the person with 150 ping. It looks like shit to everyone else.

Last I'd heard, the relation of ex_interp to other variables made it best set at .1 or whatnot, otherwise that's where you get the glitching and such. It's not as simple as "it makes it more accurate".

And what an amazing explanation that was. After all this time, you still can't manage to say anything even remotely relevant in a conversation.

Which brings me to the next part of the rant. It's a game, people. You know, that thing you play for fun when you're not in school or your actual job? Yeah, sorry if I just shattered the myth of a "professional" gamer, but the concept of doing "research" into your game should make just about anyone laugh.

Yes, i'm sure the people still playing with keyboard only are laughing themselves to tears now.

Whoever that was above makes it sound like legal research.

Whoever that was above ended up giving a reasonable, plausible explanation to questions that were posed. The most you've done so far is try to pull some "get a life" crap toward people who actually adjust their settings to better their experience while proving that you're still the fucktard i remember you to be. The only one who seems to be making it out to be on par with mapping the human genome is you. Kudos, bongo.



As far as i can tell, the basis of your post seems to be that you have a problem with anyone not playing CS like a half-assed moron.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

This problem would be simplified if hitboxes corresponded to model positions more closely in the first place, when standing still. As it is, though, for example an enemy holding a pistol can be headshot by firing well behind their head, as the model leans forward much further than the hitboxes really go. I'm on a slow enough connection that lowered values wouldn't even benefit me, with my pathetic updaterate.

CmdrFlesh wrote...

Wouldn't it be more plausible to interpolate the position updates (using the ex_interp value) and use the interpolated coordinates for both hitboxes and models? Some netcode god please enlighten me.

The client does the interpolation to make the model move slowly. However, all hit detection is done server-side. If clients were allowed to detect their own hits, then this would work (hitboxes being interpolated with the model) but that would cause all sorts of easy exploits for cheats, as well as inconsistancies when poor network performance affects players.



Theoretically it should be possible for the exact same interpolation to be performed for both server and client, to see if the client believed it had hit the enemy at an exact time, but that would require rewriting a good part of the networking code, most likely. If you were going to do this, however, you'd probably do away with ex_interp all together, and just do all interpolation based on update rates.



Really, though, it'd be nice if slightly larger hit boxes were used, and a follow up server-side model-scan was used. The downside, of course, would be that only the default models would result in "accurate" hit detection. Not to mention the CPU overhead.

I often experienced 'beeing killed where I was half a second ago', i.e., I was taking fire, jumped into cover and got shot (making me believe I was shot through the cover. But then, in ghost mode, I saw my corpse lying in open space and not behind the cover. I'm pretty sure by now that this happens due to connection issues, but I wonder if this effect can be amplified by interp tweaking... or am I just paranoid?

That's just connection issues. The "problem" is increased when us modem users join the game.



When you cross point A on your screen, say it takes 50ms for that info to reach the server, and another 50ms for it to reach normal broadband clients, who let's pretend then AWP you right at point A. It takes 50ms longer for their fire command to hit the server, which determines they thought you were at point A when they shot. The result is a "kill" which is relayed to your computer, arriving 50ms later.



The result is you perceiving your death 50+50+50+50 = 200ms after you crossed point A on your screen. Really, 200ms isn't terribly bad, though it can be annoying.



Now let's say you see "Nighthawk.56k" on the server. Same scenario, takes 50ms for the info to reach the server. This time, however, it takes 200ms for the info to reach Nighthawk's computer over his crappy phone lines. The analogy breaks down, in that I wouldn't have an AWP, and probably would miss even if I did, but that's irrelevant.



Let's say you had 1hp, and I shoot my M4A1 at you when I see you at point A (250ms after you "crossed" it). My bullet info travels to the server in another 200ms, is processed very quickly, and 50ms after that, you're computer finds out you've died.



Total time in this case is 50+200+200+50 = 500ms after you saw yourself cross point A. The downside for 56kers is that this crap happens with EVERYONE they play against, where as for broadband players it only becomes noticeably bad against people with crappy connections. The only solution, really, is broadband for everyone.

Inso[]V[]niac wrote...

this was the basis of the netcode a long time ago, when we all had low bandwidth connections (except nighthawk who is still in the stone age :P j/k).

Punk! :)

well the abnormal side effect, the only one i have encountered and the result of ex_interp being called a 'cheat', is the fact that if someone else is spectating you, youre not aiming where the model is on his client, while on your client of course you are. as uk hazard pointed out.

This also is much more often due to ping differences. You see a player aiming for where (on his screen) he thinks everyone else is. For a modem user, for instance, this will be way behind the server-side position for everyone. I'm not saying that ex_interp doesn't play a part as well, but you'll more often see it due to ping times.

theres another variable 'cl_lc' that i need to play around with to see how it affects what youre describing.

cl_lc is what lets people shoot and hit what they're aiming at, instead of having to shoot where things will be at by the time the server receives their bullet information. The effect of getting hit in an area when you thought you made it through fine is a result of this variable being enabled, but without it everyone would have to lead their enemies, some by ridiculous and unplayable amounts. You can choose to turn it off, but there's really no advantage in doing so that I know of.

Ravenium wrote...

the concept of doing "research" into your game should make just about anyone laugh. Sure, we do research when we want to find out how to fix a bug in a game, or perhaps we read up if we want to find some really neat way to do something better in game. Whoever that was above makes it sound like legal research.

You've got a point, but only so far. In the end, I don't think it's a huge, life altering issue or anything like that. At the same time, though, this is a community of people, and our shared bond is the love for a game we all play, be it for a few hours a month, or for several hours a day.



Given that context, it makes sense that people will discuss and debate the various aspects of even minor things like ex_interp and such. How many times have you heard car junkies talking about various techincal advantages of one engine over another? Sports junkies about the traits of various players, and what they think of them?



Ultimately, we just like having stuff to talk about that pertains to what we have in common. This is something we're all affected by, even if only in a slight way, and so we discuss it. Nobody's claiming that ex_interp will be the end of CS. It's just a minor point that we all agree could use some improvement, however that might come.



Well, that went longer than I expected, now didn't it? :)

[Pharlap]

even with all my ramblings, i still prefer ex_interp = 0.1, it just looks cleaner.