Clientside Lag Scan
 

Is there a quick and easy way to tell how bad the client's currently lagging? I mean, is there something like player.framerate(); //returns the player's framerate? I don't imagine it'd be that hard to make a script that counts up and compares to the timevar every 5 seconds, but if there's an easier way I'd rather use that...

No. Apparently Stefan said Graal "always runs at 20fps", when I requested a way to show your fps. I don't believe it though, because Graal can obviously slow down.

Man, what was that old feature that showed your lag at the bottom-right corner? Control F, Shift F, Alt F, something. Sometimes I wonder how much is the language barrier and how much is just an excuse to get out of a conversation. ;-D

alt+4 shows bitrate(IE data transfer outgoing/incoming, I believe). I don't think he had a problem understand because Graal does ideally run at 20fps(hence the 0.05 timeout, 1s/20frames=0.05). The problem is he thinks Graal always runs at 20fps. While it is programmed to run 20fps, it will vary depending on how it's actually running. I'm not a programmer so I don't know for sure, but I do know Graal can slow down.

Stefan is not as stupid as you seem to think.

20 fps? wow now i know why graal feels laggy all the time

Piffle, most animation's 24fps. Honestly...

In the next Graal version there is a command "/clientstats accountname" which can be used to see where the game is slow or which scripts are slow.

Hmm, that'll be handy from RC, but I guess I'll have to code the timeout - versus - timevar thing. The good news is I can just have it run the check in a system NPC which is running a timeout anyway to cut down on the overhead, and set a client.var when the client's lagging to tell all the other clientside scripts to switch to lowres.
Still, thanks for the heads up! I appreciate knowing that my work won't be rendered obsolete in the next edition. :-D

I know he's not stupid? I already said I could be wrong. Anyways, slap 100 particles in a level and tell me it's still running at 20fps.

Or 1000 bombs :D

CPU is the keyword in those cases.

Point? If I run a 3D game and my processor can't handle whatever AI or other calculations are going on, my FPS will suffer, even if my graphics card can handle it all. Point is, in those cases Graal is not displaying 20 frames per second, regardless of what the cause is.

According to some program I have, Graal start at around.. 8 FPS and goes up to 20 FPS when loading. Then it will go between 20 and 21 FPS sometimes. When moving the window around, the FPS will drop to 15 and go up to 20 FPS.

There are just some stuff I've noticed.

So Graal isn't always at 20fps?

Not according to the program I have. I'll take a look and check it out while browsing/visitting servers tomorrow.

Say "showscriptstats" on player.

Not exactly what you want, I think, but it should be good enough. Then check F2 (under scripts).

When I requested a way to display FPS, Stefan said Graal was always running at 20fps, so there was no need for such a thing.

edit:http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...89&postcount=3 though it seems I wasn't the one who requested it. Odd.

I hate you for quoting that before I deleted it. What I said was actually an assumption in itself.

However, Stefan probably assumed that you thought Graal could exceed 20 FPS. He wouldn't have meant what HE said to mean "it can't go under 20 FPS", because as I said, that's ignorance of how games work. That's like thinking any processor, regardless of how old it is, is capable of producing 20 FPS just because you think someone said so. AFK, digging out a 19 year old processor so I can get 20 FPS guaranteed.

Then again, he might be Very Literally Correct - it seems that every 1.00 seconds (remember, a second's a long time) Graal runs a Catch-Up routine that applies-and-clears any frames still in the buffer, thus the jerky-lagginess of some enemies. So when he says it runs at Always 20 FPS, it is Technically Always 20 - just when you're laggy you get to see 1, 2, and 3, then 4-20 get squished together at 1.00 seconds. *shrugs*

Doesn't help us out any, but there it is.

In that case, it's running 4fps, because 5-20 are not being displayed.

still wondering about the 20 fps thingy

isn't 25-30 minimum the standard for games?

*shrugs* Graal's been running on the 0.05 standard for nearly a decade. I'm sure if Stefan felt like it he could lower it all the way to 0.02 (50 FPS, as well as the ganis and anigifs) and leave it up to the video card to figure out how many it Really wants to display...

Apparently Graal runs at 15fps for me at Town Center on UN at maximized.

If you find the need to post such a comment, you clearly still don't understand the concepts involved.

What?

Rudementary but effective.

And Stefan knows full well Graal can run "at reduced framerate", he put in a DirectX Error Message suggesting the player press F1 and turn off lighting effects.

I forgot about that rofl.

Graal is running at 20 fps and tries to keep that framerate as best as possible, if one frame is taking slightly more time it will wait less time until the next frame. The engine supports unlimited frame rate, that mode is used for Graal3D, but for normal Graal it will not be good because animations and scripts are made for 20 fps, server-side scripts are 10 fps, and if it's running at unlimited fps the animations and scripts can act out of sync - 21 fps means the animation is stopping at some frame which looks jumpy.

The next Graal version will be more optimized, it's using DirectX9 on Windows, is fully C++ (current version is still some Pascal/Delphi), and is made to run fast enough on iPhone (optimized particle engine, removed some unneeded code, scripting engine is having less overhead) so it should be faster for normal playing as well.

Doesn't seem to work very well. Or the movement system on Kingdoms just sucks. I did a small test earlier, and framerate drops to about 15 frames per second whenever I just walk around on GK. It's usually at 20 when standing still though.

I don't know why you even needed to post this when it's so obvious to begin with, but maybe now they'll believe it.

Does this mean the non-Windows versions will be using a version of OpenGL that supports shaders? (Assuming it isn't already using such a version. Maybe that's a stupid question. I don't really know how OpenGL is used compared to DirectX.) If so, do you intend to add support for various shader effects?

Graal can quite obviously run under 20fps. What exactly is the problem? All Stefan has explained is Graal can run higher than 20fps.

The problem is you not grasping concepts. You acted as if it's a big mystery as to why a program could possibly run at less than the speed needed for normal operation. This shows a lack of understanding of basic computer concepts. I've already explained all this anyway.

Yes, he said Graal CAN go over 20 FPS, but is currently not designed to do that in non-3D (aka what we all use, you know). So let me put this more directly: this information isn't relevant to what you failed to understand.

Hurry up and release this. :megaeek:

You haven't explained anything other than telling me that I don't understand the concept.

Please, explain how Graal can never go under 20fps, and why a way to show FPS is not needed, and I'll leave it alone.

I have not said any such thing. YOU were the one that were showing surprise by the fact that a program could run under optimal, solely because you misunderstood what Stefan originally said. Is that clear to you yet? If not, I give up, because you truly have problems understanding what's said.

Where was I ever surprised? Please show my post. The only thing that surprised me was Stefan saying there was no need to display FPS because Graal always 'ran at 20fps'. I know damn well that Graal could run under optimal speed, hence what I've been saying the whole time. And I didn't 'misunderstood' what Stefan said, because it's exactly what he said. He may have said it wrong, but I didn't misunderstand.

You're the one who has misunderstood

What the hell is your problem? You've been showing hostility in every damn post you've made the past days.


And Dusty, ever considered that Stefan might have meant that it optimally always run at 20 fps when he said what he did?

Aye, but he turned down an idea to allow us to see our FPS because of it, and apparently never revisited the idea. Here it is again and he still seems to misunderstand what we're asking for.