Clientside Lag Scan

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by Stefan

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.

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.

it's using DirectX9 on Windows

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?

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

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.

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

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

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.

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by Stefan

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.

Hurry up and release this.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

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.

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.

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

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.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

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.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

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.

You're the one who has misunderstood

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

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.

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?

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by xXziroXx

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.