How about setting a date for a massive frag event? Ie. one where most of us come "together" on a selected map and server such that the player count exceeds 60 or so?

tznex03

Dave wrote:tznex03

???

!!!

tznex03 is a huge map, it must be used if you are going to play with many players.

I like the idea somehow. Too bad there isnt one 64 port server in europe

Please let me know when it's gonna happen

Urmel... wrote:I like the idea somehow. Too bad there isnt one 64 port server in europe

Please let me know when it's gonna happen

Just subscribe to this thread...

I'm running my server with a maxrate setting of 2000 bytes/s per connection in contrast to the default of 10kb/s but without any noticable disadvantages (the forced minimum is 1k/s). Therefore my DSL connection effectively limits the player count to approx. 32 because my upstream is half a mbit. (does the maxrate setting limit the up/down or combined stream?)

With the uprising of 16+ mbits/s DSL connections, 70 players shouldn't be a problem. Maybe even over 100 if limiting to 1000 bytes per second. The remaining question is of course the CPU usage... but that should not be a problem because with around 6 players I have a CPU usage of less than 10% on my VIA C3 processor with 64kb cache and 1200 MHz processing speed.

But we should definitely have a decent map for such an event first. The facing worlds map does not have enough weapons on it, but I'm sure one can change a parameter in QC such that the weapons stay. But other than that, I'd like a facing worls map with more in-door activity, eg. with two opposing fortresses.

Part of the idea is to ask the players to record their sessions such that we may create video footage, maybe a DVD with multiple perspectives.

BTW: is there a CTF mode with more than two teams/flags?

Most DSL lines i know have differnent rate for up- and download.. with upload being MUCH less but the server has to upload 'data' to the clients..

esteel wrote:Most DSL lines i know have differnent rate for up- and download.. with upload being MUCH less but the server has to upload 'data' to the clients..

Yes. My 6 MBit DSL line has 576 kbits/s upstream. The 16 MBit lines have 1 MBit upstream. Should be sufficient for quite a lot of players -- if that rate can be sustained.

our server (batservers) uploads and downloads 100Mb/s... but i'm not sure cpu can accept 64 players

parksto wrote:our server (batservers) uploads and downloads 100Mb/s... but i'm not sure cpu can accept 64 players

A dedicated server with 50 bots uses about 70-80% CPU time on my machine (P4 2.6GHz). So CPU usage shouldn't be an issue...

parksto wrote:our server (batservers) uploads and downloads 100Mb/s... but i'm not sure cpu can accept 64 players

Where is that server located?

Wow 50 bots are cool but i think it will be a huge problem rendering all those polygones. But then again i found Nexuiz to run way better then quake4 here. Both are heavily tweaked but i never run into as low fps with Nexuiz as i did with quake4..

tznex03 is huge.. but 64 players huge hmm dunno..

I could do a remake of if basicaly mirroring it arround the outer are for this evet. or perhaps glue in some otehr map(s)

Cinquero wrote:Where is that server located?

in Paris

esteel wrote:Wow 50 bots are cool but i think it will be a huge problem rendering all those polygones.

yes... with 15 players, my computer is slow (i dont speak about the server... just desktop computer)
i don't want to try with 50+

KadaverJack wrote:A dedicated server with 50 bots uses about 70-80% CPU time on my machine (P4 2.6GHz). So CPU usage shouldn't be an issue...

batservers are hosted on a computer with a VIA C7 cpu... its a bit special (really low power, if i remember well it uses 1 Watt to run), and for sure it *could* have problems to host a 64 slots server...

what is sure is that i don't think that everybody has a good enough client computer to manage a 64 players game...

obi_wan wrote:batservers are hosted on a computer with a VIA C7 cpu... its a bit special (really low power, if i remember well it uses 1 Watt to run), and for sure it *could* have problems to host a 64 slots server...

what is sure is that i don't think that everybody has a good enough client computer to manage a 64 players game...

The C7 is a massive improvement over the C3 processors. And my C3 processor with 1200 MHz could possibly handle 64 players.

And the clients should probably reduce their texture sizes/details.... if it gets too slow. Additionally, a specific map could possibly improve the situation -- if it makes sure that most of the time not all players have to be rendered at the same time.

Thats why i sugested a bigger map for this. with all players on screen most client would proly have a hard time with fps.

Well 'medley' and 'flipzone' might really help with the polygon thing.

Got bored today.. heres the result:

http://zdev.dvrdns.org:808/nexmaps/svn/ ... mpce-1.jpg
http://zdev.dvrdns.org:808/nexmaps/svn/ ... mpce-2.jpg
http://zdev.dvrdns.org:808/nexmaps/svn/ ... mpce-3.jpg

tznex03mpce. mpce = Masive PlayerCount Edition.

Download:
http://zdev.dvrdns.org:808/nexmaps/svn/ ... ce-rc1.pk3

A mirrored version of tznex03. Yes a map twice '03 original size. 2 flags for each team if you go ctf on it.

Oh no!! The lag map times TWO !!!! I will have to hardwire my lappy to my router!

Can the server set the clients' effect and video settings? At least it should automatically start the demo recording.

4m wrote:Oh no!! The lag map times TWO !!!! I will have to hardwire my lappy to my router!

Can the server set the clients' effect and video settings? At least it should automatically start the demo recording.

Yes to the former (although not by cvar, but by an one-line modification to the game code), no to the latter. Only the client can decide that a demo is to be run. Okay, the server could fetch a client cvar and do something like

Code: Select all

if(self.cvar_cl_demostarted)
  stuffcmd(self, "set cl_demostarted 0\n");
else
  stuffcmd(self, "set cl_demostarted 1; disconnect; wait; rec demoSOMEID; connect 1.2.3.4\n");


when the cvar is received. Anything but clean, so it for sure won't enter the official game code, but for such an event a server could be rigged with such code.

4m wrote:Oh no!! The lag map times TWO !!!! I will have to hardwire my lappy to my router!

Can the server set the clients' effect and video settings? At least it should automatically start the demo recording.

The 2x size map should preform better then the rc1. rebuilt most bad parts and droped rtlight compleatly. anyhow with lots and lots of players on a server it will be important to have nuff surfacearea in the map to keep players per qubic qu arround normal levels or your gfx card will catch fire, or possibly just move to some other more calm computer

tZork wrote:Got bored today.. heres the result:
tznex03mpce. mpce = Masive PlayerCount Edition.
A mirrored version of tznex03. Yes a map twice '03 original size. 2 flags for each team if you go ctf on it.

It seems most (or maybe all) of the doors in the mirrored part are defective. In the "bases" go up the lift and try the doors. The two parts move into the wrong direction and still block the door as a result

Plz note it in the topic in irc when this event will happen

Sounds fun, still I'm really worried a little about my own bandwidth and a lot about the 256MB of RAM and the MX440 video card . I think I'm gonna do some testing.

kill-o wrote:Plz note it in the topic in irc when this event will happen

I was on both IRC channels (those that are mentioned on the nexuiz homepage), but did not see any comment on this there... plz tell channel@server.