[tribes education volume 2] netset

opsayo said:
it would be cool if someone did that but compared:

== already in video ==
- terp 64, pft 0
- terp 0, pft 0
== for future science ==
- terp 64, pft as 1.40 has it set
- terp 0, pft as 1.40 has it set
Click to expand...

Recording in question (youtube link supplied on prev page - YouTube - terp = 0 vs 64) is of a player with ~28 ping (cannot emphasise this enough) who was using 1.4 (though this fact should be immaterial right?).

Filming & merging to compare player positions under different combinations of 1.3/1.4/pft/terp (fraps/v.low timescale/manual merging -- this was done several months ago so some of the details are lost to the sands of flaky memory) gives us four cases to compare:

#1 - 1.11 stock (64,0) vs.1.4 stock (64,?) - effectively no difference
#2 - 1.11 (0,0) vs. 1.4 (0,0) - effectively no difference

#3 - 1.4 stock vs. 1.4 (0,0) - what you see in the youtube link above
#4 - 1.4 (0,0) vs. 1.3 (64,64) - very little difference other than lack of stutter in (64,64).

#4 is imo the most interesting. It seems to imply that a terp value >0 lags the drawing of other players etc by that value (in milliseconds). Setting pft = terp seems to compensate as exactly as possible for that lag, albeit by using a less accurate predicted value. At low pings, this is not presumably much of an issue.

The above effects hold largely true for combinations of terp/pft tested with netset on 1.4 up to 256/256. Higher PFT values push the player further and further forward, while higher TERP values 'lag' the player in an almost exactly equivalent manner. To reiterate, setting terp = pft counteracts the effect for all values 0-->256, simulating (with decreasing levels of accuracy) the case where terp=pft=0.

HAY LOOK A FUCKING PICTURE

terppftcomparison14.png


In summary, 1.4 (stock) appears to offer no particular advantage over 1.3. If you believe terp = 0 in 1.11 offers you an advantage over terp = 64, then there is little reason to believe terp = 0 will not offer the same advantage in 1.4 - namely, a slightly less delayed player position.

I am aware this 'analysis' is valid for a few seconds of a single recording. If you want to extrapolate, go for it. I was tempted to include a section on how nofix/opsayo appear to be spewing shit when they state 1.4 stock>*, but I know can't really do that. If you want verification, get somebody else to recreate it. If you want a proper test, do it yourself. After all, it sounds very much as though there's a 1/3 chance netset is already on your hard drive.

I don't pretend to understand properly any of the theory involved. I don't even claim to be the one who carried out this testing. This terp/pft 'discussion', however, could do with a little less theory and a little more evidence - perhaps this can be a start. Also fuck you all, maybe I do give a shit.
 
Last edited:
i would be less worried about this "netset" nonsense and more worried about hm.exe(perma iffs) being passed around by the cool kids. demos of ur fav tribes heroes using it "for kicks" upon request.

holler
 
marvelo i am curious

do u think it is possible for an image to be drawn too far forward to the point of inaccuracy

this is very important

also that was an amazing post and i am glad u did the analysis

#1 - 1.11 stock (64,0) vs.1.4 stock (64,?) - effectively no difference
#2 - 1.11 (0,0) vs. 1.4 (0,0) - effectively no difference
Click to expand...
since you said that indeed the player had 28 ping then this is expected right? so people who are claiming that 1.40 somehow adds lag to people < 32 ping are really just making things up

#3 - 1.4 stock vs. 1.4 (0,0) - what you see in the youtube link above
#4 - 1.4 (0,0) vs. 1.3 (64,64) - very little difference other than lack of stutter in (64,64).
Click to expand...
also it appears that terp 0 is superior to 1.40 for at least your case (28 ping)? interesting :)

nofix idk what u want me to say tho it was a good post with lots of data

future study: can you do the same comparison and graph for 200+ ping?
 
Last edited:
There are several inaccurate statements with marv3lo's post. Most obvious, you can't alter pft in 1.30, so (64, 64) is impossible. Also, why set interpolate and pft equally? The values have no correlation. One is a value used to update a players position over an amount of ticks, the other is a value used to predict a players position over time based on the last known position.

At face value, it's a preference.
 
i am assuming when he typed 1.30 he either used a 1.30 bypass or meant 1.11 as in the other cases

and dare i am pretty sure it is 0 - and if not you can control 1.11's pft settings anyway

@nofix: i believe he is setting them equal because he found the following to be true (not because he assumed they are inverses of each other):
It seems to imply that a terp value >0 lags the drawing of other players etc by that value (in milliseconds). Setting pft = terp seems to compensate as exactly as possible for that lag
Click to expand...
 
yeah i remember spreading that piece of misinformation with ppl who were setting pft 2 our pings

p00r noobies

even when u got the hax we didnt even let u know how to werk them right ;[
 
Back
Top