SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

I'm not changing my position on anything, my position is informed by that quote and the factual reality of server performance as it is in the mod. It has nothing to do with the requirements for the SA, and we must also keep in mind that server fps is variable so it's really pointless to split hairs over these numbers when they do not remain constant from moment to moment. Just because glitches exist doesn't mean the game suddenly "doesn't work." It just means it functions below their requirements from performance. You keep dying to prove me wrong when I have only been telling you the reality of the situation. yeah, 400 ms response time doesn't sound ideal - but that does not mean the game suddenly unravels itself and crashes. It still functions, albeit with hiccups. This game has had hiccups for a long time and honestly, we should be used to them. Even still, the team does not want that kind of performance. How can I make this clearer for you? My views and opinions are not necessarily indicative of the team's views. They want 15 sfps average. Their words, not mine. You won't be playing a DayZ SA server with 5 fps. Neither on the client or server. Case closed.

"A couple of weeks ago the server was running constantly at about 5 FPS, and still functioning with the only main problem being rubberbanding zombies." - rocket Does this answer your question? functioning at 5 fps. Only minor issues. Dayz mod is different from DayZ SA. Ect. Must we go further with this ridiculous argument?

Yeah, not in the standalone. In the mod they do, because simulation occurs on the client. So clearly the SA has slightly more demanding needs to complete the server side simulation. That is the problem the team is working on right now. You argue in circles!

Ok, here you go. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sufficient http://www.thefreedictionary.com/functional So if 5 sfps is enough to be functional, is it not sufficient? Your performance requirements are based on the magnitude of that sufficiency. The dev team wants 15 sfps average minimum. What does it matter what I say? Am I a developer of this game? NO. Really my opinion doesn't matter much in the way of what is or isn't sufficient, because the dev team has their own standards. What part of this is hard for you?

It functions, and it does happen in DayZ right now. Some impatient people would argue that is enough to constitute an alpha release. Like you just said, that is below the teams performance expectations anyway. Again, what more do you want? The point that 5 server fps is functional does not take away from the fact that 15 server fps is more than sufficient, and that is the goal. Again, you seem to be making no point whatsoever and simply complaining about issues that are currently being worked on as we speak.

It just demonstrates that they are at work. There is light at the end of this tunnel...

Clearly it is as people play DayZ servers which can only do 5 server fps at times, and we deal with it now don't we? Besides, the point here is that rocket does not find that sort of performance acceptable for release. Read the OP. Your point is moot because what you are arguing for is the minimum for release. What more do you want?

All I'm pointing out is that that is the kind of server performance we are dealing with right now! Jesus you are fucking thick.

Which is why they aren't releasing until they can get an average performance of 15 server fps. :facepalm:

No news is good news, but any press as they say is good press. btw. Update 6 minutes ago.

It has already been established by precedent in both this game and other video games that 5-15 server fps is sufficient, anything above that is actually rather incredble. Latency is connection lag. That's how long it actually takes the tick to reach you. It doesn't change the ticks per second, and they don't change your fps. Minecraft servers can generally only accomplish a maximum of 20 spfs (server frames per second). Wasteland servers already work of 5 sfps. I don't see your point here.

It isn't true latency. Just update ticks. For example, you go to pick up a can of beans. even at 5 ticks per second, that means it takes 200 ms to recognize that you have picked up a can of beans. It does not in any way affect you rendering fps of that animation. Similar for walking. The server doesn't need to know exactly where you are in terms of rendering, only in terms of simulation. I think we all need to calm down about the fps until we see the actual game. Testers say it already performs better than the mod. Let me provide an example. You see this: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Server sees this. I I I I I I

No. They are not synced. The server controls status updates, but it doesn't control client side rendering. Those are completely different. Basically it's like the difference between latency and FPS. While server fps can have some effect (especially when the net-code is not fully optimized), it doesn't actually slow down your GPU's ability to render graphics (I believe this may provide insight to Dean's proposal of "separating rendering from simulation.") Lower server fps means lower ticks (or pings) and therefore latency. But because rendering is client side, you don't actually see most of that going on. 15 ticks per second is actually quite high, if you think about it. That means you are syncing with the server every 1/15th of a second. In truth, even 5 ticks per second is pretty rapid. You can't count to 200 milliseconds.

This is not the biggest issue for the game. It isn't even holding back release. They can fix this pretty rapidly, and actually they don't have to completely fix it before the Alpher. The issues that are holding it back are mainly performance and network efficiency which affect MP playability. Once that's done minor glitches (like collision problems) are really just a matter of editing the planes which zeds use for pathing, and then replacing the old ones. Rocket posted a good pic somewhere... Here it is. Rather simple, actually.

The hype had to die, so the game could live.

It can be more. That's just the minimum. Silly.

That doesn't make sense. The idea is to make it more difficult to drive military vehicles, and furthermore, it's factually incorrect. Most large trucks have a manual transmission.

Hey that's a really good idea. Maybe most cars and civilian SUV's could be automatics, whereas trucks, Urals, Humvee's, ect. could be manual, making a sort of skill curve with the vehicles.

http://steamdb.info/app/221100/ Wow. Updated 6 hours ago. They must be working like the devil.

I don't know about a DayZ 2 per se... But yes I see where you are going with this. THIS COULD BE HUGE... Alright I'm quitting. My mouth tastes like pure ash.

Yeah, I think we can all agree that ever since we were about twelve years old, we have been waiting for this game, whether we knew it or not. DayZ is the culmination of every great idea that could be applied to gaming, to date. Maybe one day something will be able to surpass it, but I highly doubt it will come any time soon. Game publishers are typically not out to make the game of people's dreams. They're out to make a quick buck by shoving a blockbuster-action-packed-explosion-setpiece fuckfest that they can easily turn out for a profit. They don't have the integrity necessary to stick to a specific vision because at the end of the day, the majority of people are stimulus junky retards who can't handle the idea of having to walk for 30 minutes to an hour to get anywhere. The main issue is that while some game developers would like to do those things, their publishers don't think it would be profitable. A publisher (EA) is a corporation which pays a development studio (i.e. DICE, in the case of Battlefield) to basically do their bidding. When the publisher holds all the cash, they pretty much get to say what goes on. The developers have less freedom in that environment. On the other hand, BI is a mostly self publishing company (hence the title indie, independent of publisher) which means they can make creative decisions for themselves. You get similar issues with music, film, ect. Unfortunately, most "big budget" films have horrid scripts with basically no real content. All the music you hear on the radio is cookie cutter crap meant to pander for mass appeal. This is because of publishers. They want a product that will sell, not a product that is different, unique, and maybe even fringe. That won't deliver the profit they're looking for.

Man, you always make horrible analogies. This game is pushing boundaries. 1: GTA V is not an MMO. 2: BF4 is not played on a 220 sq km landmass with inventories, crafting, complex health systems, persistent item tracking and storage, AI, none of that. BF4 is s straight shooter. Just because they have some graphically impressive set-pieces means nothing. You simply can't compare the engines. They are trying to accomplish different things. Dead Rising is a totally single player game. At most you've got limited coop, but that isn't 60 players now is it? Just because one game accomplished one thing doesn't mean another game can automatically accomplish a totally different thing. It's like saying "Michael Jordan can play basketball, so why can't BIll Gates play football?!?!" Idiot. Moreover, all of those games had years of silent development, whereas we are literally witnessing the very beginning of DayZ. So all your points are basically moot. Arma 3 is not DayZ. Not even close. Do you ever make a positive post or are you here simply to feed your own self righteous ego through trolling? Seriously. If you don't like the game, why are you even a member of the forums?

You have got to stop going full retard.

Yeah, I'll admit it piqued my curiosity a bit. I'm assuming it's something to do with the server having to render things in order to track their simulation. Like for instance, a zombie moving across the map. Maybe you want to simulate a zombie moving around, but not actually render it graphically to the clients who can't see it. I think that's what he means. Not sure, that's just my tentative speculation.

Er, no, because you clearly ignored the part where he said