Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

General discussion of the port and Doom-related chat.
User avatar
Decay
Under Moderation
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm
Location: Dweller2 Map11

Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#1

Post by Decay » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:47 am

In terms of netcode

Playing duel, DM, CTF, or similar game modes, I feel that 3.0 has been a significant and noticeable downgrade from 2.1.2. I am not the only person of this opinion, however, I am unable to articulate the precise reasons why this is, thus no tracker ticket. Shots do not register very well, drop frequently, unlagged has become completely out of control in terms of hitting way, WAY behind walls and around corners to a horrific extent.

Please post if you feel the same way and can better articulate your problems, thanks.
Last edited by Decay on Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MetalGuy213
Forum Regular
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 7:56 pm
Location: Santiago De Chile
Clan: Reborn After Death
Clan Tag: <RAD>
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#2

Post by MetalGuy213 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:19 am

In Such problems that i recive of the 3.0 are just for me not good.

i've been experiencing the new release wich was my 16th birthday where i play DM, CTF and LMS for ZDoom wars experiences, just i've seen that i get lag sometimes, much lag outs, same as you say about shots do not register very well.

i also think that i've tried to play CTF Wads along of people with or without mods i've been noticing that i just see a lot of unexcepted things from projectiles and shots.

User avatar
Leonard
Developer
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#3

Post by Leonard » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:29 am

Maybe this ticket has to do with it?

User avatar
Decay
Under Moderation
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm
Location: Dweller2 Map11

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#4

Post by Decay » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:36 am

Possibly, there has also been speculation it may have to do with the tic buffer, but I can't be certain.

User avatar
Dark-Assassin
Maintenence Crew
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:25 am

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#5

Post by Dark-Assassin » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:44 am

I've noticed it too in the early beta versions. Related topic: https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7315
I never got around to getting a demo of it happening

User avatar
Galactus
Forum Regular
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:22 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#6

Post by Galactus » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:56 am

Have to say I noticed this as well, I barely had any dropped shots in 2.1.2. and now I drop them regularly in 3.0. Thought cl_noprediction fixed that issue, but apparently it doesn't really do anything at all.

User avatar
Ivan
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:38 pm
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#7

Post by Ivan » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:42 pm

Yep, from shooting people behind walls way after they took cover to incredibly awful desyncing weapons. (They start firing way later and your ammo is long gone...) The netcode got worse and this is affecting competititve and non-competitive modes.
=== RAGNAROK DM ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== ALWAYS BET ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== Who wanta sum wang? ===
=== Death and Decay - A new Monster/Weapon replacer ===

User avatar
Sean
Zandronum Tester
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: England
Clan Tag: [TSPG]
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#8

Post by Sean » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:31 pm

Did the competitive community not test 3.0 at all? If they did, why didn't they report this, especially if it seems to have existed for so long?

Code: Select all

<Decay> csnxs try being less bitter and actually helpful to the community, thanks

User avatar
Decay
Under Moderation
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm
Location: Dweller2 Map11

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#9

Post by Decay » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:56 pm

Very few, and nobody can articulate why outside of "feels worse" which isn't a valuable report. If 3.0 had been hosted on NJ maybe it would've been reported, but it is what it is.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#10

Post by Torr Samaho » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:58 pm

Sean wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:31 pm
Did the competitive community not test 3.0 at all? If they did, why didn't they report this, especially if it seems to have existed for so long?
Exactly. If it is as bad as claimed in this ticket, either the competitive community ignored our many calls for testing or something outside Zandronum changed and its not 3.0's fault (e.g. servers running on different hosts with a less stable connection).

Anyway, to debug this we need more information. First, you should double check that 2.1.2 actually works better than 3.0. For this, you need to test 2.1.2 and 3.0 under the same conditions (same client machines, some server hosts, some settings, etc.). If there are differences, please provide demos so that we have something to investigate.

User avatar
Ivan
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:38 pm
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#11

Post by Ivan » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:11 pm

Sean wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:31 pm
Did the competitive community not test 3.0 at all? If they did, why didn't they report this, especially if it seems to have existed for so long?
It's true that it was barely tested because the main server cluster that competitive players prefer was not TSPG at the time, and most likely still isn't.

As for testing this, not sure exactly what kind of information would help here. Server settings haven't changed over time so that's not one thing to look for hopefully. (In regards to NJ that is) I know many people have fiddled with their unlagged settings by now so that's one thing to try.

The biggest complaint is the shots not properly registering and when they do register it's at seemingly impossible moments such as hitting people behind walls. The latter mostly happens with people of high ping difference being able to shoot low ping players behind walls, but the other way around is also happening. Other than that, I think we need more people to chime in on this.
=== RAGNAROK DM ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== ALWAYS BET ON ... uh... dead forever? ===
=== Who wanta sum wang? ===
=== Death and Decay - A new Monster/Weapon replacer ===

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#12

Post by Mobius » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:35 pm

Sean wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:31 pm
Did the competitive community not test 3.0 at all? If they did, why didn't they report this, especially if it seems to have existed for so long?
With what active competitive scene are you referring to? The only stuff happening now is TDM tournaments.
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
Ru5tK1ng
Posts a lot
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#13

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:38 pm

It would be worthwhile to have TSPG allow for a short while the last beta build of 3.0 to be selected when running a server. At least with this, the tic buffer could be turned off and it would be easier to see if it is a cause or the cause of the reported complaints.

User avatar
Marcaek
FNF Team
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:05 am

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#14

Post by Marcaek » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:39 pm

There were plenty of CTF games going on during the period where TSPG was forced to be 3.0, for example. Said games were always on Funcrusher, which stuck to 2.1.2 untile the final version.

User avatar
mondobizarrro
New User
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:18 am
Clan: Valhalla Gameplays
Clan Tag: VGP

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#15

Post by mondobizarrro » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:05 pm

Gotta agree here too, some shots i make seem to be BS and some times i miss when i knew i shouldve hit the enemy

User avatar
Catastrophe
ZanStuff Reviewer
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:44 am
Clan: Incredible

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#16

Post by Catastrophe » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:58 pm

Yup, priv was actually in a jolt of activity before 3.0's release. Konar didn't and still doesn't give a fuck about his servers and I don't know why AlexMax didn't just host 3.0.
Youtube Channel
Projects: Super Demon | Idiotic LMS | ZCC | Cata WeaponZ

Currently hooked on Overwatch and PUBattlegrounds.

User avatar
Zakken
Forum Regular
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:32 am
Location: House Ylisse

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#17

Post by Zakken » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:23 pm

I'm one of the last people to complain about dropped shots, but I have been dropping shots too often for my liking as well.
Ru5tK1ng wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:38 pm
It would be worthwhile to have TSPG allow for a short while the last beta build of 3.0 to be selected when running a server. At least with this, the tic buffer could be turned off and it would be easier to see if it is a cause or the cause of the reported complaints.
Agreed!
* Determination.

User avatar
Theshooter7
Forum Regular
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:15 am

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#18

Post by Theshooter7 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:25 pm

I can attest to the problems people have mentioned. There is definitely something going funky with the unlagged code. Here is a video I have of one instance of shots just straight up not hitting their target:
phpBB [media]

This was recorded from my POV demo, which matched up with what I saw in the game at the time it happened (and hence why I went back through the demo and re-recorded).
If you want to investigate the demos, the links are below:
Patience's perspective (same as above video) (low ping, ~60ms or less)
Alfonzo's perspective (high ping, ~220ms or more)
(It's on the first match map, so demo_skiptonextmap, then do so again if you wish to skip the intermission, then demo_skiptics 17100 to land about at the spot where the video takes place)

There have been a number of instances as well where I have somehow hit people clearly out of sight around corners, where I fired for the sake of it and ended up scoring a kill. Watching the spectator perspective of someone with high ping (like 110+) is truly a delight as you'll often see them shoot at thin air and people who were behind them or off to the side or something will take damage/die.

One thing I suspect may be part of it is if the unlagged tic buffer is too lenient. Take for example, in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, the unlagged on a 64 tic server allows for a packet timestamp difference of 200ms. Meaning, if the shot would have been on target on a player within a 200ms timespan, then the server will register the hit. 200ms is a little less than the average human reaction time of 250ms, and CSGO players don't move all that fast to begin with. This is where I think the tic buffer could be too lenient on players with higher ping vs lower ping, although this really does not account for shots dropping when it's low ping vs high ping. This is also just theoretical observation though, and I would like to look through the source and see for myself, which leads to my next point: A couple of folks and myself actually want to investigate into this ourselves as well. While we can probably find the code on our own, if you have any pointers on where we could start looking at for unlagged code and such, that'd be a helpful head start. One thing that could certainly be started on is some improved network debugging tools: console commands (obviously marked as cheats) to throttle/choke packets and add latency, a means of showing what the client saw vs. the server, and so on, would probably go a long way in resolving netcode problems.

[EDIT] oh yeah, wads needed for the demos:

Code: Select all

doom2.wad
zandrotdm-v-1i.pk3
hudtimer_v4.pk3
zandrospree2rc2.pk3
ctfcap2c1.pk3
newtextcolours_260.pk3

User avatar
Decay
Under Moderation
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm
Location: Dweller2 Map11

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#19

Post by Decay » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:01 am

I'd also like to saying that bumping into other players, especially higher pinging players, is particularly atrocious. It feels like your orientation gets completely skewed and the other player's position ends up somewhere completely different.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Lead Developer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#20

Post by Torr Samaho » Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:32 am

Does the problem happen with both "cl_ping_unlagged 0" and "cl_ping_unlagged 1"?

EDIT:
Decay wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:01 am
I'd also like to saying that bumping into other players, especially higher pinging players, is particularly atrocious. It feels like your orientation gets completely skewed and the other player's position ends up somewhere completely different.
This should not be any better in 2.1.2. Does anybody notice a difference between 2.1.2 and 3.0 in this regard?

Post Reply