toysrme

True Bro





"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson

Posts: 1,339

True Bro

Networking, Lag Compensation, and Hit Detection Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by toysrme on

what? suddenly we move forwards 20 years hardware and 25 years coding wise and no... it's the HARDWARE'S fault...



excuse me? i've previously shown myself running 60/60 snap/tick rates on xbox 360 to no ill effect. That video has been flagged by Activision so many times i had to delete it several times and make it private. and you want to say in public that it's the hardware???



not to mention how many of us were running tick rates of AT LEAST 40's back on ancient PC hardware in the day... sub 1ghz processors that were even more strapped down and like CURRENT console, and like CURRENT console you only ran 30-40fps AVERAGE frame rates. the same realm of frame rates ANY console COD version has ever run. they're simply retarded is the problem.





for examaple. continual claims by programming staff that console COD runs 60fps... excuse me? xbox 360 is faster than ps3, and the highest FPS any COD has ever had in multiplayer is 54fps on average. and that's highrise MW2. about as uncomplicated texture and geometry wise as you can possibly make a map.





Cheers,



G IH A IN ID II

Every other online game made doesn't have problems with lag? I could go into great detail as to why this statement is incorrect. However, I'll say that our game runs at 60fps and this compounds the challenge of equalizing the impact of different client to host latency disparity.Cheers,G IH A IN ID II









while i was not involved in the conversation, another ximmer probed their responses to the simple issue of dial-up networking rates.

(i washed my hands of developers years ago after butting heads personally with d.v. (he had me XBL profile and console banned by microsoft's infamous thePro. ive had cliffyB look at the look mechanics in unreal games, only for the programmers to dash the fact that they cant program a look mechanic for doo-doo.)

the only way to get a dev to listen to anyone is paying a lot of money in a kickstarter project...









community.callofduty.com/message/205442001#205442001





Will you be able to? If it is something you can't answer that's still an answer for me.





Thanks!







community.callofduty.com/message/205442000#205442000





1st off, thanks for answering the communities questions... it really does help alleviate our frustrations with this game! thanks!





However,

I PM'd you this the other day and posted it in this thread, and I was really really hoping you could shine some light on it!





I have wanted to find this out for years now... but COD is based on the old Quake engine, right? obviously updated over the years into what we now have. BUT it's netcoding speed has not been changed for years!... which is why when we look at our network bandwith (via router/tools etc.) being used when playing COD it BARELY uses anything! It is dismal right?



Please please please answer WHY this pipeline has not been doubled, or at least upped?

Does anyone use dial up anymore for gaming....? if so, why should the pipeline be set for the minimum like this?



Why isn't the netcode set higher since XBOX live requires at LEAST DLS.



Wouldn't uppping the bandwidth ammount (even slightly) significantly address many of the problems we are seeing with the network problems in COD?



If you answer this question it will make my day!!!! - because it is extremely frustrating not knowing this answer.



It seems like such an EASY fix for COD, but then there must be a reason why right?



So.



1. Why is the netcode's pipeline set so low?



2. Has auto-aim/aim assist been strengthened since Modern Warfare 2? If so why? It feels like it is way to high - locking onto people behind doors/walls even!



3. Can we PLEASE get an option to completely disable auto-aim aim assist for multiplayer on XBOX 360?



4. Are spawns going to be further fixed soon? Enemies are STILL being spawned right next to me, allowing them to know exactly where I am since I JUST killed them (I am not even tactical loitering), and they get me in the back.





Thanks Ghandi! Hey Ghandi!!!!!!1st off, thanks for answering the communities questions... it really does help alleviate our frustrations with this game! thanks!However,I PM'd you this the other day and posted it in this thread, and I was really really hoping you could shine some light on it!I have wanted to find this out for years now... but COD is based on the old Quake engine, right? obviously updated over the years into what we now have. BUT it's netcoding speed has not been changed for years!... which is why when we look at our network bandwith (via router/tools etc.) being used when playing COD it BARELY uses anything! It is dismal right?Please please please answer WHY this pipeline has not been doubled, or at least upped?Does anyone use dial up anymore for gaming....? if so, why should the pipeline be set for the minimum like this?Why isn't the netcode set higher since XBOX live requires at LEAST DLS.Wouldn't uppping the bandwidth ammount (even slightly) significantly address many of the problems we are seeing with the network problems in COD?If you answer this question it will make my day!!!! - because it is extremely frustrating not knowing this answer.It seems like such an EASY fix for COD, but then there must be a reason why right?So.1. Why is the netcode's pipeline set so low?2. Has auto-aim/aim assist been strengthened since Modern Warfare 2? If so why? It feels like it is way to high - locking onto people behind doors/walls even!3. Can we PLEASE get an option to completely disable auto-aim aim assist for multiplayer on XBOX 360?4. Are spawns going to be further fixed soon? Enemies are STILL being spawned right next to me, allowing them to know exactly where I am since I JUST killed them (I am not even tactical loitering), and they get me in the back.Thanks Ghandi!



community.callofduty.com/message/205442179#205442179



MW3's netcode bears little relation to Quake 3 at this juncture, and hasn't for a long time.



Low payload transfers are good. We constantly strive to minimize packet transfer from both host to client and vice versa. This is a sign of an optimised network engine. Think about what the game is synchronising nowadays compared to games in the past.



Auto aim has not been changed to my knowledge.



There is no plan to disable auto aim.



We are continuing to look at the spawn system.



Cheers,



G IH A IN ID II MW3's netcode bears little relation to Quake 3 at this juncture, and hasn't for a long time.Low payload transfers are good. We constantly strive to minimize packet transfer from both host to client and vice versa. This is a sign of an optimised network engine. Think about what the game is synchronising nowadays compared to games in the past.Auto aim has not been changed to my knowledge.There is no plan to disable auto aim.We are continuing to look at the spawn system.Cheers,G IH A IN ID II



community.callofduty.com/message/205442180#205442180





Send me it again and I'll answer it if I can.



Edit: I just did. I'm going to sleep now before the kids wake me up in about 3 hours!



Cheers,



G IH A IN ID II Sorry Zacharybinx34.Send me it again and I'll answer it if I can.Edit: I just did. I'm going to sleep now before the kids wake me up in about 3 hours!Cheers,G IH A IN ID II









What they need to do is double the network rate. the hosts & clients need to be sending out 40 updates a second. which would work pretty good considering cod is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360.



The update rate doesn't really change the network overhead drastically so it could be doubled & be fine for people with 128k connections and up.







P.S.



Want to buy GUN GAME !!! =) imo,What they need to do is double the network rate. the hosts & clients need to be sending out 40 updates a second. which would work pretty good considering cod is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360.The update rate doesn't really change the network overhead drastically so it could be doubled & be fine for people with 128k connections and up.P.S.Want to buy GUN GAME !!! =)







community.callofduty.com/message/205443497#205443497



Hey Ghandi,



Again, thanks for responding to my question! But I have one last follow up question!





Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360??? This would only require what...? 128K internet.... who doesn't have that anymore today? 128K is nothing!







Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)







I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?





Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!



Zach

Hey Ghandi,Again, thanks for responding to my question! But I have one last follow up question!Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360??? This would only require what...? 128K internet.... who doesn't have that anymore today? 128K is nothing!Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!Zach



Ghandi, Thanks for the update, however. Please read/respond to this. I am TRYING to help you guys and I really think what I am suggesting would SUBSTANTIALLY fix much of the problems we are having with LAG.





Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360???





Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)





I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?





Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!



Zach

Ghandi, Thanks for the update, however. Please read/respond to this. I am TRYING to help you guys and I really think what I am suggesting would SUBSTANTIALLY fix much of the problems we are having with LAG.Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360???Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!Zach



Ghandi, Thanks for the update, however. Please read/respond to this. I am TRYING to help you guys and I really think what I am suggesting would SUBSTANTIALLY fix much of the problems we are having with LAG.





Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360???





Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)





I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?





Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!



Zach Ghandi, Thanks for the update, however. Please read/respond to this. I am TRYING to help you guys and I really think what I am suggesting would SUBSTANTIALLY fix much of the problems we are having with LAG.Wouldn't doubling the network rate that the hosts & clients need to be sending out up to 40 updates a second fix a lot of the problems? Which would work pretty good considering COD is normally running 40-60fps in MP on PS3/360???Wouldn't this have a very successful impact on many of the problems we are seeing with "HIT DETECTION" and what many are refering to as the "Lag Compensation" problem? (which as you and I know is a broad brush term that is being thrown onto every issue of connectivity!)I understand the game NEEDS to have some form of lag compensation (the interpolation & extrapolation done to predic what players will do in the future). BUT you guys can tweak things for some improvements, but isn't it true that all the overhead from having to run through XBL and PSN have a dramatic bearing on the networking issues?Thanks Ghandi! I really appreciate you taking time to talk with the community!Zach



community.callofduty.com/message/205460574#205460574





I have provided information that what you told me about increasing it equaling drop in FPS on consoles being completely false.





This is a fix that you need to actually look into. Those who mod/hack their consoles have done it for private matches with no FPS drops and the game runs GREAT! Ghandi, please look at my PM's regarding the send/receives between the client/host per second.I have provided information that what you told me about increasing it equaling drop in FPS on consoles being completely false.This is a fix that you need to actually look into. Those who mod/hack their consoles have done it for private matches with no FPS drops and the game runs GREAT!



community.callofduty.com/message/205463059#205463059





As I PM'd you and said numerous times, IT DOESN"T INCREASE FPS ON CONSOLES like you thought it did. Whoever told you that was completely wrong. People with modded 360's (not suggesting ANYONE do this) have done it and have NO PROBLEMS at all with any FPS drops. The boost in netcode performance is spectacular!





Please actually fix the netcode problem.



When can we expect the PS3 netcode changes to come to XBOX 360? The game is terrible right now for multiplayer online on the 360. Ghandi.... brother... please please please fix the lag by doubling the send/receive per second w/ client/host....As I PM'd you and said numerous times, IT DOESN"T INCREASE FPS ON CONSOLES like you thought it did. Whoever told you that was completely wrong. People with modded 360's (not suggesting ANYONE do this) have done it and have NO PROBLEMS at all with any FPS drops. The boost in netcode performance is spectacular!Please actually fix the netcode problem.When can we expect the PS3 netcode changes to come to XBOX 360? The game is terrible right now for multiplayer online on the 360.



community.callofduty.com/message/205463908#205463908



Hello Zach,



In order to put this to bed once and for all.



As it stands, based on the product of message size, update frequency and client count we're butting up against the limits of consumer grade connection capacity - so we can't "just double" the update frequency even if there was negligible encoding cost. There are platform provider requirements that dictate that the game must play on a minimum spec connection.



And encoding isn't free. The server is already taxed in many instances - doubling its encoding workload isn't feasible from a CPU overhead perspective while maintaining 60fps.



Thanks for the suggestion, however, I suggest the posts cease now my friend.



Cheers,



G IH A IN ID II

Hello Zach,In order to put this to bed once and for all.As it stands, based on the product of message size, update frequency and client count we're butting up against the limits of consumer grade connection capacity - so we can't "just double" the update frequency even if there was negligible encoding cost. There are platform provider requirements that dictate that the game must play on a minimum spec connection.And encoding isn't free. The server is already taxed in many instances - doubling its encoding workload isn't feasible from a CPU overhead perspective while maintaining 60fps.Thanks for the suggestion, however, I suggest the posts cease now my friend.Cheers,G IH A IN ID II









here's the simple facts you have to know to tear that doo-doo to pieces:

1) console COD has never been a 60fps game. to call it a 60fps game you must load a multiplayer map, go to the edge of a map where there is no geometry/textures to look at & stare at the skybox.

2) console COD normally runs about 52-54fps on x360. mid-high 40's on ps3

3) everyone on the entire planet that has ever used the lagometer in a quake game should recognize that 1-2 frames drawn per update is AWESOME connection. 3 frames per update is "average" while anything over 6 frames per update is your world heavily guessing. in fact, this is known so well that iD put a big fat HEY IDIOT YOU ARE LAGGING color change built into the meter at 6 frames 20 years ago when they built it. aint anybody ever changed that because it's still true... console COD AVERAGES 4-5 frames drawn per update. so you're ALWAYS boarderline as to being heavily lagging by PC standards from *any* era of gaming. assuming you have great internet you're only a sneeze away from being laggy. god forbid you've got average internet... i've got good internet and stay slammed at 4-5 if i'm not hosting even in local play. god help the rest of you that don't...









then you get into frame drops. oh god the network stalls. god forbid anyone calls in a big even in console COD. like a big airstrike. network traffic gets shit on. here's the simple facts you have to know to tear that doo-doo to pieces:1) console COD has never been a 60fps game. to call it a 60fps game you must load a multiplayer map, go to the edge of a map where there is no geometry/textures to look at & stare at the skybox.2) console COD normally runs about 52-54fps on x360. mid-high 40's on ps33) everyone on the entire planet that has ever used the lagometer in a quake game should recognize that 1-2 frames drawn per update is AWESOME connection. 3 frames per update is "average" while anything over 6 frames per update is your world heavily guessing. in fact, this is known so well that iD put a big fat HEY IDIOT YOU ARE LAGGING color change built into the meter at 6 frames 20 years ago when they built it. aint anybody ever changed that because it's still true... console COD AVERAGES 4-5 frames drawn per update. so you're ALWAYS boarderline as to being heavily lagging by PC standards from *any* era of gaming. assuming you have great internet you're only a sneeze away from being laggy. god forbid you've got average internet... i've got good internet and stay slammed at 4-5 if i'm not hosting even in local play. god help the rest of you that don't...then you get into frame drops. oh god the network stalls. god forbid anyone calls in a big even in console COD. like a big airstrike. network traffic gets shit on. Ghandi, I know you have a lot people answering my questions, but for the past weeks I have been continually checking if you have responded to my question.Will you be able to? If it is something you can't answer that's still an answer for me.Thanks! mousey, what will really blow your mind are the opinions of people that work on it. on their current network model. their opinion is that its great and "can't be improved on due to current hardware constraints". they don't believe that the network hardware, nor CPU has enough overhead to process better. no, not *just* the CPU, but i've even heard a claim that the built in adapters themselves can't handle more. really? that's kinda funny cause 10mb ISA slot ethernet cards seemed to not have trouble running 50/50 default for LAN games...what? suddenly we move forwards 20 years hardware and 25 years coding wise and no... it's the HARDWARE'S fault...excuse me? i've previously shown myself running 60/60 snap/tick rates on xbox 360 to no ill effect. That video has been flagged by Activision so many times i had to delete it several times and make it private. and you want to say in public that it's the hardware???not to mention how many of us were running tick rates of AT LEAST 40's back on ancient PC hardware in the day... sub 1ghz processors that were even more strapped down and like CURRENT console, and like CURRENT console you only ran 30-40fps AVERAGE frame rates. the same realm of frame rates ANY console COD version has ever run. they're simply retarded is the problem.for examaple. continual claims by programming staff that console COD runs 60fps... excuse me? xbox 360 is faster than ps3, and the highest FPS any COD has ever had in multiplayer is 54fps on average. and that's highrise MW2. about as uncomplicated texture and geometry wise as you can possibly make a map.while i was not involved in the conversation, another ximmer probed their responses to the simple issue of dial-up networking rates.(i washed my hands of developers years ago after butting heads personally with d.v. (he had me XBL profile and console banned by microsoft's infamous thePro. ive had cliffyB look at the look mechanics in unreal games, only for the programmers to dash the fact that they cant program a look mechanic for doo-doo.)the only way to get a dev to listen to anyone is paying a lot of money in a kickstarter project...