Put cheatfree on dm.quaketx

[Tremor]

Thanks Polarite!

[lust]

cpu calculations haha are you guys kidding no one is using p75`s or 486s no more. but dont get me wrong, im just saying a 1-2 ping differnece if any is not much to worry about. ive yet to see a difference in pings with cheatfree or non. 100 ping to 98-100. it seems the same

[Polarite]

Yes well. dm.quaketx.com is now running R00k's pent/quad glow fix + sv_cullentities 2 (Anti-wallhack). We now have the best of both worlds. There is no reason that anyone should suspect wallhackers on my server. Both ports 26000/01 have the newly compiled binary. All that is left is for Baker to add the Anti-wallhack image in front of the server name on the server list.

Good job !
Added the Anti-Wallhack icon for both Texas servers on the frontpage.

[foq]

It shouldn't be an issue, unless the server is running on really old hardware... like a P3 or worse, which I doubt.

[Tremor]

Thanks Rcade, Bluntz.
Foq, you're probably right. I'll keep my eye on that as I haven't *thoroughly* been able to test that.

[bluntz]

WoW
8% cpu no matter how many are connected and cheaper operational cost?

My hats off to you Rook and Tremor!
And yes Foqqer is spot on the theoretical circuit flow....nice.

What more could you ask for?

[rcade]

awesome
thanks a lot rook / tremor

[foq]

As I understand, the stress level will climb as there are more players and the server has to decide whether or not to "show" item x to players from their respective viewpoints.

[Tremor]

CPU usage has gone up a very small amount - bandwidth usage has dropped since it is not sending useless information about entities players cannot see.

I believe I'm sitting at 8-10 cpu regardless of how many players are connected.

[foq]

ping is the time it takes to send 1 packet to and then return back.
Bandwidth is the amount of packets that can be sent.
So the difference for the user will be less packet loss.
There may be even more substantial benefits server side as the cpu may in fact have fewer calcs to do.
In ANY case there is no downside only improved response and possibly lower cost to run the server.

The only way PL would improve is if the server's bandwidth was already completely saturated, which I doubt. As for CPU calculations, anti-wallhack actually adds way more stress than a standard quake server.

[Tremor]

Yes well. dm.quaketx.com is now running R00k's pent/quad glow fix + sv_cullentities 2 (Anti-wallhack). We now have the best of both worlds. There is no reason that anyone should suspect wallhackers on my server. Both ports 26000/01 have the newly compiled binary. All that is left is for Baker to add the Anti-wallhack image in front of the server name on the server list.

[bluntz]

i beg the differ, its about server location for pings, im not saying dont set them all up. ofcourse it would be "better" and make everyone feel more secure in the b.s ways. but what was i saying.. yeah it depends on server locations for pings not cheatfree, i should no since chi located servers are the only servers i dont have 100 ping at regardless of set ups. and low ping is for noobs

wrap it up

ping is the time it takes to send 1 packet to and then return back.
Bandwidth is the amount of packets that can be sent.
So the difference for the user will be less packet loss.
There may be even more substantial benefits server side as the cpu may in fact have fewer calcs to do.
In ANY case there is no downside only improved response and possibly lower cost to run the server.

[lust]

wrap it up

[foq]

i beg the differ, its about server location for pings, im not saying dont set them all up. ofcourse it would be "better" and make everyone feel more secure in the b.s ways. but what was i saying.. yeah it depends on server locations for pings not cheatfree, i should no since chi located servers are the only servers i dont have 100 ping at regardless of set ups. and low ping is for noobs

wrap it up

The antiwallhack cvar reduces the amount of bandwidth the server uses. He's not saying it would improve ping, but that it would reduces the amount of bandwidth the server would use.

[lust]

i beg the differ, its about server location for pings, im not saying dont set them all up. ofcourse it would be "better" and make everyone feel more secure in the b.s ways. but what was i saying.. yeah it depends on server locations for pings not cheatfree, i should no since chi located servers are the only servers i dont have 100 ping at regardless of set ups. and low ping is for noobs

wrap it up