darkpeace

Was doing some benchmark reading and noticed: It would appear that the flashpoint server is: - Not designed with SSE2 in mind / does not use SSE2 - Not designed with threading in mind / does not use multiple CPUs at load / does not use hyper-threading - Primarily related to the Whestone FPU benchmark* - Secondarily related to Drystone benchmark* (* - please correct me if I have misread what appear to be the facts, maybe Drystone is a more accurate indicator than plain Whestone is, I could have them back the front. Also bear in mind that memory speed, CPU pipeline depth, caching, etc all impact performance, esp when placing a heavy load on any server, 1 MB cache may boost performance a fair bit, I am just looking at RAW figures here, they are ONLY an indication. Consider this a fair warning for the benchmark impaired !) Now show me the numbers: Here are some SANDRA 2004 scores of various CPUs: [CPU Name] [Drystone, Whestone FPU, Whetstone iSSE2, MHz] [Performance Index vs P4-C w/o HT] Intel Pentium 4-C [2 SMT] 3.2GHz 512L2 (HyperThreading) 9808, 4059, 7095, 3200 119, 171, 164, 100 Intel Pentium 4-C 3.2GHz 512L2 (No HyperThreading) 8243, 2368, 4330, 3200 100, 100, 100, 100 AMD Athlon FX53/Opteron 150 2.4GHz 1ML2 9749, 3764, 4903, 2400 118, 159, 113, 75 (so far 3.2Ghz add 33%) AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2GHz 512L2 8380, 3465, NOSSE2, 2200 102, 146, " , 68.75 (so for 3.2Ghz add 45%) Intel Pentium M 1.8GHz 1ML2 (*) 7084, 2499, 3196, 1800 86, 106, 74, 56.25 (so for 3.2Ghz add 77%) (If you want to see more then goto: http://www.users.on.net/~darkpe....RKS.xls for the full SANDRA 2004 SP1 list) If the server was threaded, even less efficiently than above, and used SSE2 then a HyperThreaded P4 3.2 Ghz would perform very well (cache and memory subsystem dependant) However it does not use SSE2, so you can ignore the Whetstone iSSE2 column. It does not use HyperThreading or multiple CPUs so you can ignore the first CPU which was a P4 Northwood (HT+800FSB+512kb). Notes: ~~~~ Once threading and SSE2 are not used the P4's x87 FPU+SSE starts to suffer performance wise (4059 down to 2368 - OUCH !) (*) The Pentium-M (not the P4-M the P-M) has a very effective FPU and is over 13% more efficient than the Athlon XP at equal clock speeds in floating point calculations. Since SSE2 is not used by the server the most cost effective server would likely be a Barton core based Athlon XP with 512kb cache, as they are not memory bandwidth intensive like a Pentium 4 during a mispredicted branch. Personally for large LANs and MFCTI based games I would go the Athlon 64FX (1mb cache and newer ones are DualDDR aswell, ECC is now optional). An Opteron (MultiCPU) would be of little use, just as the MutliCPU Xeons and HyperThreaded P4s do not really benefit. Perhaps Suma, or another coder could explain or reply with some detail as to which parts of the system the server hits the most and which parts it simply ignores exist (eg: SSE2) Personal expectations on a MFCTI are: FPU/SSE, ALU/MMX, Cache+Memory (assuming it has some SSE and MMX optimizations when compiled, and that it was compiled for systems with such features) Final words: ~~~~~~~ Overclocked servers are proportionally faster However you would really need to ramp up the P4-Northwood to have it perform as well as a AthlonXP-Barton or Athlon 64FX. (Unless the server hammers the memory subsystem regardless of the CPU used) In this case I doubt the P4 Extreme (with +2MB L3) or P4-Prescott (with 1 MB L2, but many more stages in the pipeline) would perform more than 5% better than a P4-Northwood at equal speeds. So it would appear a shorter pipeline CPU is the way to go, with 1 single logical CPU/FPU (with SSE and MMX) and a fast memory/cache system. Regards, Tabris.DarkPeace (Now if I can get confirmation of the above, I am off to build a Athlon64 based server for LANing, so I can keep it for home use when required) [EDITS: Minor typos fixed, added a Performance Index vs P4-C 3.2Ghz]

You forgot: http://fedora.redhat.com/

Which Linix distro / version / kernal you using ? (eg: Red Hat / Fedora, SuSe, etc)

Please Note: ~~~~~~~~ In the above post where I say that enabling HyperThreading is folly, I am referring the the Flashpoint Server only. The clients (or people gaming on their machines) are typically better off with HyperThreading enabled. Server Side: - You want HyperThreading off - Unless it doubles as a HTTP/FTP server and you dedicate each process to a dedicated 'logical' CPU - HyperThreading (or load balancing with the curent non-threaded server) can really hurt performance, esp in larger missions, high rate of fire weapons do not seam to enjoy it very much at all (I am talking large missions here, really big ones) Client/Player Side: - You want HyperThreading on (so long as they run Win2K/XP+) - All the Direct X, Sound, 3D Video, etc benefits from hyperthreading, to a degree at least, rarely will Flashpoint go over "50%" load on a HT system, but it still improves performance (however slightly) Just to make sure no one misunderstood my previous post, Tabris.DarkPeace

More optimized ? (that is the whole point of this post really, the Flashpoint server does not benefit at all, from a 2nd, 3rd, 4th......8th CPU, unless you run multiple servers from the same box, and assign each to a dedicated CPU, being a real CPU, not a hyperthreaded logical one.....damn that is slow) Getting (the current unthreaded) Flashpoint Server process to run on more than 1 CPU is folly. Reason Cache-Coherency over multiple CPUs: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes I am aware it 'appears' to work under Linux, but it just load balances over 8 CPUs at 1/8th load each, or 4 CPUs at 1/4th load each, never really hitting 100% usage. It is faster to isolate to a single CPU, the reason for this is cache-coherency, (we already discussed this above to a lesser degree so I wont bother repeating it here unless we need to).... Bear in mind that the server is also capped at 50 fps. So the only time you will really notice it under load is if your servers' CPU hits 100% load before the server (game/physics world) is running at 50 fps. The load balancing above does not help, as it is 'capped' at (# of CPUs div/ #of CPUs)percent% load per CPU (be they logical hyper-threaded CPUs or real Xeons or Opterons), which means with four CPUs the load balanced server process uses (at a maximum) 25% of each CPU. Well you might think this is faster having 4 x CPUs at 1/4 load each. Now bring into account that each CPU needs to see the caches of the other 3 and you will find it actually leads to a slow down in performance. (and wastes alot of cash on a uber server that never runs at full load) Thank you for re-iterating my point: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anyway, that is exactly my point, if the Flashpoint Server was threaded, we could all go out and get Dual/Quad/8-Way Xeon (1066FSB) or Operton servers and actually see them run close to 100% load (over all CPUs), even if it still capped at the lowly 50 fps (which as Flashpoint turns into a Counter-Strike replacment is becoming another server side annoyance). Bear in mind, however, to have a 8-Way Opteron at full load and only get 50 fps from the server would require around 1,000 AI or perhaps more, and several vehicles, AS WELL (Hyper)THREADED OFP SERVER SOFTWARE to run such a mission on (aka: MFCTI with more AI and more vehicles with many players and 32 human squads per side, with a few AI squads roaming the landscape) Which is exactly why I want a 8-Way THREADED server in the first place (MFCTI: Deluxe) Short Answer: ~~~~~~~~~ No I do not believe that VBS1 server is threaded, and more than 1 CPU (or enabling HyperThreading in the BIOS) is folly as it only slows the server down. However if anyone can prove me wrong (that VBS1 is theaded) I will more than happily part with Resistance 1.96 and port MFCTI 1.16+ to VBS1 (yes I would pay AU$700 just to get my uber server running at 80-100% load over all 4 CPUs)

Maybe Suma made a mistake Everyone does. Still I'll stick to the documented method myself.

I think what Suma was indicating is that some commands are for flashpoint.cfg only, where as other commands are for the server.cfg only. So to summarise what has been said above, and make it easier for people to join the forum mid way I have included the following (based from DS-ADMIN.RTF with minor edits) ============================================== Server configuration Commands List When running a dedicated server, you will usually want to create a Server.cfg file. In this file you can adjust many server parameters, and you can provide a mission list for automatic mission selection. An example can be found in Appendix B. The following entries are recognized in the configuration file: password = <session_password>; passwordAdmin = <admin_password>; hostname = "<user friendly host name>"; motd[]= { "<1st MOTD line>", "<2nd MOTD line>", …. "<Last MOTD line>" }; motdInterval=<interval_in_sec>; voteThreshold=<threshold>; reportingIP="<id_address>"; voteMissionPlayers=<number>; class Missions { class Mission01 { template = <mission_name>; cadetMode = <cadet_mode>; param1 = <value>; param2 = <value>; }; class Mission02 { … see above … }; …. class Mission<N> { … see above … }; }; Note: The configuration file uses C++ like syntax. Each entry must be terminated with semicolon. You can also use C++ comments (starting with a double slash: //). ============================================== Performance tuning (Flashpoint.cfg Commands List) There are also some parameters that can be used to fine-tune network performance. You can add following entries to Flashpoint.cfg (the main Flashpoint configuration file): MaxMsgSend=<limit>; MaxSizeGuaranteed=<limit>; MaxSizeNonguaranteed =<limit>; MinBandwidth =<bottom_limit>; MaxBandwidth=<top_limit> The greatest level of optimization can be achieved by setting the MaxMsgSend and MinBandwidth parameters. For a server with 1024kbps we recommend the following values: MaxMsgSend = 256; MinBandwidth = 768000; You can use the admin command #monitor to monitor server resource usage. The server never runs at more than 50 fps*. When running slower, it always uses all available CPU processing power to maintain the smoothest possible gameplay. When running at less than 15 fps, you can consider the server overloaded – the mission currently played is probably too complex for given server. If you see the server is not using bandwidth that it could use, you can try increasing values MaxMsgSend and MinBandwidth. * - On many servers this is limited to 32 fps maximum (give or take up to 10%) due to Windows time slices and other advanced settings regarding how processes are multitasked ============================================== Regards, Tabris.DarkPeace GarageLAN, ACT

Guess it paied off reading the documentation then (DS-ADMIN.RTF) So Suma, it only works in the one .CFG file ?, Well there you go, many admins made that mistake Even in the linux version I assume it is the same. Might have to spread the word.

The World War II online server might be threaded. (?) The stuff at http://www.es.com is most likely threaded very much aswell. (and on the client side too I suspect) Are there many games server sthat could benefit from HyperTheading is a better question. eg: Flashpoint with over 2048 AI, and 64 human players, with heaps of vehicles, etc.......well that would benefit....alot. (or get 1-5 FPS on the server "world/physics" engine) The point is, once you you 100% of current CPUs (for any task), you really need 2 or 4 CPUs to go any faster, and that requires much more software engineering to be aware of the multiple cpus, etc Eg: Video Encoding, Large Servers for various uses, File Compression, and Flashpoint Server would all benefit. (Most of the above are already threaded btw)

Was hoping for a "yep, the server is multi-threaded now" post, but to no avail Damn, might need to wait until OFP:2

I don't know if it really matters if it is server.cfg or flashpoint.cfg, but yeah, as said above, the official docs say to use flashpoint.cfg for those particular commands, so thats what *I* used. Perhaps adding the MaxPlayers command to each, and checking the results, would confirm this dilema. Otherwise I can see alot of Admins updating their "flashpoint.cfg" on their servers. Am pretty much talking about a LAN only server anyway. Mainly with CTI, and other "huge" missions. Most online servers, unless local to an ISP, and only local customers of that ISP join, will be not be as smooth for other players to join (obvious for CTI to most, but not all) (Most of us dedicated players have GigaEthernet switches ready for LAN backbones) So, if the server spends 20ms (1000ms\50fps) processing would that not add an "effective" (not actual network) 20ms to each players latency. (so with a server ping of <10ms, the server is spending more time processing the physics of multiplayer than it is shooting packets back and forth) (Not to mention that the slower a given users frame-rate and connection, the less frequently that given player is sending updates, but lets all assume the clients are near identical machines on GigaEthernet, just for discussion purposes, we've all gone over this bit 1 million times) Anyways, to prove the above point, use a crudgy server to host CTI maps at say 6-8 fps, all the players will notice. (1000\8fps=125ms processing time) Then use a faster one that sits at 32 fps max/peak/idle/loby, the players will notice it is smoother. (1000\32fps=31.25ms processing time) Then use a server which does not have the 32 fps "bug", and runs at the 50 fps that Resistance servers "should" run at, the players will notice it is smoother again. (1000\50=20ms) By graphing the above one can quite easily conclude, that if the server ran faster (eg: didn't cap itself at 32 or 50 fps), and thus used more CPU time then players are happier (in case that wasn't bleedingly obvious) Once the server hits 125fps (8 ms processing time) no player should be able to notice, unless there are so many players that network/pci/southbridge latencies come into effect which is beyond the scope of this "simple" forum. (Then again 64 players is the maximum, is it not ?) I agree with Certa, but am sure we *all* want to see our Xeons / HyperThreaded P4's, and other decent servers showing what they can really do. By (as above multiple times) having the OFPR server benefit from HyperThreading, and Multiple CPUs to run even faster, or in the case of CTI just not as slowly - , say 50 fps constant would be nice to see, and surely possible with current hardware. Still can't help thinking about the server.cfg vs flashpoint.cfg edits for those commands - Â - least we all learned something today (Just wanted to add, thanks Benu for backing me up there) If MaxPlayers works in both .cfg files, then it likely doesn't matter, still I followed offical documentation just in case.

Yep, dodgy Windows, looking at changing that soon. VM Ware, or not, I am downloading SuSe now. (http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/server/) Also looking at Dual Opteron Server if all goes well (read: OFP2 better be threaded, and well, or I doubt I'll touch it, might even as http://www.es.com what simulations they can offer civilians - lol) Suprised Suma hasn't replied to this post yet to be frank. Generally he has his say on such things fairly quickly. Anyways, if you guys do have a Beta threaded server, fire me an email, or reply here, I keep tabs on this forum.

mmmmm, SuSe Linux is looking mighty good there. (about to roll it out at work for Notes, Domino, Servers with the over 1024 thread patch, 5x the speed of a MS based Domino server, with 2000 users) SuSu is funny, I think the FPS fluxuations you see are normal, however getting capped in the ass at 32 fps (give or take 5-15% depending on fluxuations) is pretty shit, as both a PEAK and IDLE (loby) server speed. Why can't it just use 80% (or more) of a single CPU ? (HT disabled) and just run at whatever FPS it can manage with 80% - 99% CPU load ? For a "game" server it is very weird. And for what became a "high end" simulation, I would have expected MultiCPU/Threading in the server, esp for AI, and Scripting, as each AI group could run on a dedicated CPU if there where enough (Solaris Flashpoint box anyone ?)

Many servers out there limit at 32 fps (no reason I can see) (Not 37 fps, 32 fps and thats in the lobby) Checked flashpoint.cfg and server.cfg, nothing stands out, even looked at the users cfg file too. ==Server.cfg===================== // add a line password="{password}" here to assign a password for this session, which everyone who wants to join the game will need in order to connect passwordAdmin = "****"; // Admin password hostname = "GarageLAN - ACT"; // Server Restrictions MaxPlayers=64; // Note : Dont use " between wider quotes voteThreshold=0.5001; voteMissionPlayers=0; motdInterval=30; motd[]= { "messages here"; }; reportingIP="master.gamespy.com" // reportingIP="207.38.8.34" // End of Firehazzard II config ==Flashpoint.cfg===================== Light_Explo="1"; Cloudlets="1"; Cockpit_Textures="256"; Limit_LOD="0.019000"; CPU_Benchmark="3200"; 3D_Performance="1600"; Frame_Rate_Pref="750"; VehShadows="1"; File_Heap="16"; Object_Textures="256"; HW_Type="Direct3D"; MaxObjects="256"; Shadows="0"; Language="English"; Quality_Pref="500"; Resolution_W="1024"; Adapter="0"; Texture_Heap="16"; Resolution_Bpp="16"; Resolution_H="768"; Reflections="1"; MaxLights="32"; Sky="1"; Animated_Textures="256"; Light_Missile="1"; Landscape_Textures="256"; Textures_Drop_Down="4"; Shadows_LOD="0.050000"; LOD="7.500000"; Total_Memory="512"; Light_Static="1"; Product="Resistance"; MaxMsgSend=1024; MaxSizeGuaranteed=1024; MaxSizeNonguaranteed=512; MinBandwidth=3000000; MaxBandwidth=20000000; MinErrorToSend=0.001; (changing this value, trying to find sweet spot) ==UserInfo.cfg===================== frameRate=80.000000; visualQuality=0.150000; objectShadows=0; vehicleShadows=1; cloudlets=1; viewDistance=1000.000000; terrainGrid=25.000000; volumeCD=7.000000; volumeFX=10.000000; volumeSpeech=8.000000; singleVoice=1; enableEAX=1; enableHW=1; frameRate=80.000000; visualQuality=0.150000; objectShadows=0; vehicleShadows=1; cloudlets=1; viewDistance=1000.000000; terrainGrid=25.000000; volumeCD=7.000000; volumeFX=10.000000; volumeSpeech=8.000000; singleVoice=1; enableEAX=1; enableHW=1; frameRate=80.000000; visualQuality=0.150000; objectShadows=0; vehicleShadows=1; cloudlets=1; viewDistance=1000.000000; terrainGrid=25.000000; volumeCD=7.000000; volumeFX=10.000000; volumeSpeech=8.000000; singleVoice=1; enableEAX=1; enableHW=1; ======================= I removed all the crap from the above (eg: MOTD, server names, used Server.cfg vs actual file name, etc) Nothing up there stands out, as "limit this server to 32fps". Apparently it is a very common problem, just wish there was a real fix for it (Timeslice / Quanta's RegHack anyone ?) Maybe it is caused by Direct X 9.0b (was running a or just plain DX 9.0 before), or the 1.92 - 1.96 inclusive series of patches (It used to do 50 fps, then one day, no cfg edits performed either, it didn't anymore) I suspect it is a MS thing,, Suma said in another post it was timeslice related, (remember back in Win 3.1 or OS/2 you could specify them), however no actual fix was mentioned. That's what I am seeking (for the community) Also working on a Radeon Z buffer flickering fix (RegHack) this weekend (Australia TimeZone), so I can play without distant objects looking like shite.

Sorry I wasn't 100% clear on the above, Some servers (OGN, Australia, Melb), my own server, and others I have seen only do 32fps max (give or take up to 10%) So #MONITOR 1: -Shows a peak speed of of 32 fps, -Shows an idle/loby speed of 32 fps -Shows 32fps most the time, when cpuload is only 64% or less Is there a way to make it 50 fps , so it uses more CPU time (above 90% would be a nice starting point) Sorry I just thought everyone was aware of the 32 fps vs 50 fps issue, Although it is good to hear your server is 50 fps, Perhaps it to, is realated to HyperThreading ? (unlikely) Just want "as smooth as possible" play on LANs. Also: Is anyone run any Athlon XP/MP, AMD-64 or Opteron servers out there ? Wouldn't mind finding a way to benchmark them on an equal playing field, and compare the results.

Fix for flickering on ATi cards (woot) Caused by being unable to use W-Buffer on new hardware, with new drivers, etc...and the Z Buffer on ATi cards being optimized for games without visibility to the horizon, etc. Am looking into this, THIS WEEKEND. Same deal for nVidia cards, but my game buddies don't use NV cards, so we gotta hunt around the registry some more, etc I am 70% confident I have a fix, rejoice

Now is anyone going to try and tackle the 32fps vs 50fps server performance issue, without palming it off to Windows timing, or Quanta's as their known ? Also does a server at 100%, running at 28/32fps mean that if it was 50fps idle, it would run at 44/50fps or 28/50fps ? (There are many fools out there who have no idea, I am prepared to read alot of replies until I get the fix I am after) Has anyone been able to re-create the problem, then isolate and fix it ? Has anyone made a reghack, or other simple solution available to server admins ? Bummer about the threading, least now I am more certain of why a P4 Northwood - 2.4/800@2.9/1066 beats a Quad Xeon 2.66/533 (uugghhh half the FSB). - and yes I run uber RAM at 166/200th of the FSB speed, as I can't find any 533Mhz DDR1 DIMMs anywhere with decent timings. Also with the server frame rate, even when playing basic maps, like Pistol DM with 5+ people, it would be nice to see #MONTIOR 1 report 50fps, and SFA CPU usage, rather than 32fps and even less SFA CPU usage. [aka: HLDS PingBooster, http://www.udpsoft.com, where is Resistance 1.96RC PingBooster I ask?, expecting no reply] I'd love to see the server at 60% or more load running the server physics engine (well thats almost all it does really) at say 120+ or even 300-600 fps Also a threaded server could handle much more AI, and even animals running around and the like (free ones, not extracted from VBS1) Well I wonder if the great mystery will ever be solved ?

Thanks too: ~~~~~~~ RN Malboeuf, I thank you for your honest and frank reply, Also cheers for the info on the player stuttering being related to HyperThreading, those logical CPUs are no where near as fast as a real one (load balancing on single core). That is logical, but I never tried it before. In return, although you prob already know this, there is a command "MinErrorToSend=0.001" you can add to flashpoint.cfg, which may help ALOT on the MFCTI maps, (It gets a mention in the change log that no-one reads) Enjoy, Other Dodgy Comments: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So you net admins just run Xeons cuz you host web servers, etc, aswell....makes sense, bummer 'bout the speed hit. Soon enough I'll get one of those PreScotts to a damn high speed, on a FSB with RAM to suit (PC4000 or so, etc) Although the Athlon 64FX, may end up being a good choice (I suspect flashpoint benefits from short pipeline CPUs, with fast x87/FPU units, and makes some basic use of MMX, and maybe SSE- Athlon XP2000+ was beating my higher clocked P4s at the time, but its long gone) Well good thing I am a FlashpointLAN gamer, so we can just use a high FSB, highly clocked P4 [] I am bookmarking this one for others. Still, where are the coders offering a threaded server ? (I ain't paying AU$250+ for VBS1, but I would pay $250 for a well threaded Flashpoint: Resistance server update for MFCTI use at LANs, etc)

The Hardware specs are at: http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com/specifications.html But bear in mind Flashpoint Recommended specs where only a 600 Mhz CPU, and alot of us run 3 Ghz rigs now and still think it could perform better in many aspects (alough we have pushed 1.96 engine to its limits), and as I said on page 4, the servers need more MPS support. As for not being able to buy I in the states, dunno, I know some members of WOLF, ACT, Australia have already ordered VBS1 at the "non US / Canada site" and expect to have it within the week. I am quite sure if us downunder can get it, then the states should be able to aswell. (Woot, Now I can train my private militia, the DarkPeace Assault Marines) If your looking for more read my post on page 4 or check out: http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=16832 - the forums of OGN, clan WOLF, will have some decent stuff in the next few weeks Plenty of similar vids at www.es.com or if your bored(?) grab: ftp://downloads.codemasters.com/Video/lifeless.exe And remember the gold old days

The Hardware specs are at: http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com/specifications.html But bear in mind Flashpoint Recommended specs where only a 600 Mhz CPU, and alot of us run 3 Ghz rigs now and still think it could perform better in many aspects (alough we have pushed 1.96 engine to its limits), and as I said on page 4, the servers need more MPS support. As for not being able to buy I in the states, dunno, I know some members of WOLF, ACT, Australia have already ordered VBS1 at the "non US / Canada site" and expect to have it within the week. I am quite sure if us downunder can get it, then the states should be able to aswell. (Woot, Now I can train my private militia, the DarkPeace Assault Marines) If your looking for more read my post on page 4 or check out: http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=16832 - the forums of OGN, clan WOLF, will have some decent stuff in the next few weeks Plenty of similar vids at www.es.com or if your bored(?) grab: ftp://downloads.codemasters.com/Video/lifeless.exe And remember the gold old days

Why no mention of the oldé site: http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com Or does the public VBS1 stand for something else now ? (Virtual Battle Space) Just curious, the engine looks identical to Flashpoint 1.96 Although I have seen ADFA running VESL servers with 1.97 VBS1 and ADFA1 and ADFA2 addons Is this the real deal ? (don't make me march over to ADFA to ask - thats 15 km for me - it is too late) ADFAs' VESL Servers *appear* offline which means they are upgrading or replacing them with something better (hint hint) I suggest they email Mike Melvin-256 http://mfcti.sourceforge.net Must have MFCTI: for VBS1 !!! And I hope that servers can benefit from HyperThreading and 4 (real / 8 logical) CPUs......damn I need my virtual world of combat [], damn 1.96 is only a tad faster on a HyperThreaded server [] Also hope the engine supports DX 9.0b+ features and looks better, as many of the addons in the movie on the OGN forums I already have (for free). AU$500+ is a bit steep for most players, although the Animal, and Terrain Pack 2 looked alright, and could prob be made to work in Resistance 1.96 RC) Still, my main concern is performance of 4x CPU Servers. If they want it to take off, contact Atomic mag Australia, get a removable insert, and include "VBS1Bench2005"* on the coverdisk, just so people can see what detail to expect on their personal system, and grade their 4x way servers which are no doubt lined up already. *-Doesn't exist, use your imagination, Benchmarks are the most cost effective method of 'advertising' cuz everyone compares their score, who knows could be the next big thing to replace 3D Mark 2003, and auto optimize the game for decent frame-rate out of the box (unlike FlashpointPrefrences.Exe, which was more basic) Also another vid for people: But this one is Harmony II engine based: http://www.es.com/resources/itsec+h2.wmv Also browse: http://www.es.com - to dig up more stuff I suspect OFP2 may look better than that, and have similar size 'battlespaces' as I guess people will start calling them Competition = good for everybody, and I don't mean to distract the VBS1 feel, just thought the E&S vids might interest some people.

Why no mention of the oldé site: http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystems.com Or does the public VBS1 stand for something else now ? (Virtual Battle Space) Just curious, the engine looks identical to Flashpoint 1.96 Although I have seen ADFA running VESL servers with 1.97 VBS1 and ADFA1 and ADFA2 addons Is this the real deal ? (don't make me march over to ADFA to ask - thats 15 km for me - it is too late) ADFAs' VESL Servers *appear* offline which means they are upgrading or replacing them with something better (hint hint) I suggest they email Mike Melvin-256 http://mfcti.sourceforge.net Must have MFCTI: for VBS1 !!! And I hope that servers can benefit from HyperThreading and 4 (real / 8 logical) CPUs......damn I need my virtual world of combat [], damn 1.96 is only a tad faster on a HyperThreaded server [] Also hope the engine supports DX 9.0b+ features and looks better, as many of the addons in the movie on the OGN forums I already have (for free). AU$500+ is a bit steep for most players, although the Animal, and Terrain Pack 2 looked alright, and could prob be made to work in Resistance 1.96 RC) Still, my main concern is performance of 4x CPU Servers. If they want it to take off, contact Atomic mag Australia, get a removable insert, and include "VBS1Bench2005"* on the coverdisk, just so people can see what detail to expect on their personal system, and grade their 4x way servers which are no doubt lined up already. *-Doesn't exist, use your imagination, Benchmarks are the most cost effective method of 'advertising' cuz everyone compares their score, who knows could be the next big thing to replace 3D Mark 2003, and auto optimize the game for decent frame-rate out of the box (unlike FlashpointPrefrences.Exe, which was more basic) Also another vid for people: But this one is Harmony II engine based: http://www.es.com/resources/itsec+h2.wmv Also browse: http://www.es.com - to dig up more stuff I suspect OFP2 may look better than that, and have similar size 'battlespaces' as I guess people will start calling them Competition = good for everybody, and I don't mean to distract the VBS1 feel, just thought the E&S vids might interest some people.

Anyone else think the Russians should have the classic white thermal vision, as the actualy did historically, vs the 'American' NV goggles ? See http://www.x20.org for pics They also have pics of the newer colour spectrum based thermals, so you can 'see' what temp something is.

Shoutcast or Streamcast to save bandwidth thus even a 256kbps connection (upstream that is at the server end) could host ALOT more players, as everyone gets the 1 x 256 kbps stream outbound, and each client uploads whatever they need to to the server. Combined with having clients Shoutcast some information to other clients, to save server bandwidth. In this day and age, many people can afford 256 Kbps outgoing (a reasonable speed), with 1536 Kbps incoming (heaps) And even if it was optimized to the point where 33.6 Kbps was playable (using the old system) thats only 30 players (max) that you would want per 10 Mbps link (and optimizing netcode this much is unlikely) However with the above system, Shoutcast 1 stream from server to all clients, at 192-256 Kbps, which should be ample bandwidth for all players on the shoutcast, esp when each client can also shoutcast to other clients. Thus if there is one idiot with a lame connection (playing in wrong country for example) he will only be affecting himself (unless he is driver/commander/gunner of a vehicle that is). Anyone with a intermediate knowledge of networking concepts should be able to grasp the above. Regards, DarkPeace ACT, Australia (where 1536/256 ADSL is all we can get)

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=utf8&q=soviet+thermal+optics&_sb_lang=pref Thats a decent starting place