PitViper

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Feb. 14 2002,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- Server Framerate as reported by #monitor rarely drops below 15 unless there are one or more particularly bad connections or when we have 20+ players connected. - We are not memory bound: Â I rarely see > 256MB of RAM used by app (until the memory leak sets in - but that's a separate issue...) - We are not bandwidth limited.<span id='postcolor'> I am not sure what the problem is. Do you experience much lag or desync on the server even when running on 15 or better framerate? If yes, did you try set value MaxMsgSend higher? (Default is 128 for dedicated server, but I think in your case value 1024 could be better) If you are not seeing any lag or desync, I can see no point in using more bandwidth, because if it is not really needed. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also suspect that each connection is processed sequentially, which is why the Red Square comes on for everyone when one machine is not responding in a timely manner What I might propose would to make each connection an asynchronous object with communication functions between the server (arbiter) and client. <span id='postcolor'> Currently we are using DirectPlay to perform this communication. On our side there is nothing that would process connections sequentially, so if you see this happening, it is probably problem of DirectPlay. We are designing non-DirectPlay implementation for OFP networking, which we expect to be performing much better, but it will probably take quite long before it will be available.<span id='postcolor'> great! Are you going to leave it open/modular enough for a possible future online persistent world? Look forward to seeing the new code. BTW, we have no problems with the dedicated server with up to 8 players in our gaming group.

Good job on the sounds. My comments: The AK, M16, and M21 could use some improvement. There is no kick or base response on the them (m16 mostly). its all higher pitch. I couldn't hear the heavy breathing. Explosions could be a bit louder. I found myself inching up the effects volume compared to the the older sets (Jim's specifically). I really liked the new sounds when you are in the volume adjustment screen, particularly the jody calling I'll post more as I play it more.

*cough*

there are a few older ones at My OFP site

me

me

Just thought I'd mention this.... I believe the tents they use in the game are much more recent than 1985. We were still using GP mediums mostly while I was in in the 90's

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (L24A @ Feb. 03 2002,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've posted this thread a couple of months ago for the first time. But most of the US Armed Forces "know it alls" on this forum dismissed it as nonsense. So I'll post it again.[/i]<span id='postcolor'> Care to post the thread where Americans claimed the M240 wasnt replacing the M60? As an Ex-Army guy, I could have told you this years ago.

a better damage model where specific parts of the objects take specific damage would drastically improve the game. This counts for buildings and all other vehicles as well...

stachel, I can host it if you want. email me at efisher@zoo.uvm.edu

also: http://www.mgames.cz http://www.uvm.edu/~efisher

Satchel an ETA on the soundpack? I'm dying here

I have a few different ones at my site My OFP Files

I've had the enemy in full retreat before!

works now. thanks a bundle.

I have the same problem