Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

General discussion of the port and Doom-related chat.
Konda
Forum Regular
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#41

Post by Konda » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:59 am

Razgriz wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:41 pm
I'm more surprised at the fact something that wasn't tested thoroughly was still allowed the green light, sounds like a fault on both ends
Please no. Zandronum releases are already being stalled for too long. If no one's gonna test the betas, there's no point in stalling it even further. Although this discussion may conclude with beta builds being given more attention in the future, if the testing requirements were even more strict in the past than they were, I doubt we'd still see a Zan 3.0 release.

User avatar
Razgriz
Forum Staff
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:15 am

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#42

Post by Razgriz » Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:04 am

Konda wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:59 am
Please no. Zandronum releases are already being stalled for too long. If no one's gonna test the betas, there's no point in stalling it even further. Although this discussion may conclude with beta builds being given more attention in the future, if the testing requirements were even more strict in the past than they were, I doubt we'd still see a Zan 3.0 release.
I don't see why it could have been reverted if lack of testing was the problem, if other tickets could be put on hold for 3.1 I'm sure this change could have been delayed for the better.

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

#43

Post by MetalGuy213 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:51 am

Razgriz wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:04 am
Konda wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:59 am
Please no. Zandronum releases are already being stalled for too long. If no one's gonna test the betas, there's no point in stalling it even further. Although this discussion may conclude with beta builds being given more attention in the future, if the testing requirements were even more strict in the past than they were, I doubt we'd still see a Zan 3.0 release.
I don't see why it could have been reverted if lack of testing was the problem, if other tickets could be put on hold for 3.1 I'm sure this change could have been delayed for the better.
it should make it more better then the things if a lot of updates and tickets are up for 3.1

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

#44

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:54 am

Incorrect. This tic buffer was not added for 3.0, it's been in since 2.0. It caused no issues during the life span of 2.x and there was no indication aside from unknownna's ticket that it was this big of an issue. The buffer wasn't touched directly by any commits either.

User avatar
Combinebobnt
Contributor
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:37 am
Location: Erth
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#45

Post by Combinebobnt » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:06 am

OK i see like 6 new tickets on the gametic unlagged so I have to say:

Good job guys, you finally did it.

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

#46

Post by Mobius » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:09 am

Combinebobnt wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:06 am
OK i see like 6 new tickets on the gametic unlagged so I have to say:

Good job guys, you finally did it.
Image
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
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

#47

Post by Decay » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:09 am

Yes, I saw all the new tickets related to this, great finds, I really hope these things can be easily fixed.

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

#48

Post by Leonard » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:31 am

Except for cl_ticsperupdate, I have fixed them all here.
I'm just making the PRs one by one to keep things simple.

ZzZombo
Forum Regular
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:11 pm
Location: Ravenholm

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#49

Post by ZzZombo » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:46 am

I just wanna to say that I CAN'T AIM in 3.0 like at all. I dunno why, but today my aim was all over the place, as in I turn slightly to a side to shot, but end up turning several times more than intended. I must say I have played the newest GZDoom a day before, and even tho I came back to Doom after a long break, I didn't suffer in terms of aim playing there a little bit at all, even tho all settings there are supposed to be the default ones, whereas in Z3.0 they are simply taken from Z2.1, i. e. the ones I used to play with. I tried to fiddle with mouse settings in the menu, but couldn't get anything to play nicely with me, I've tried "overall sensitivity", "turning speed", "prescale input", but nothing, nothing lets me play comfortably. What can be done about this?
QZRcon - Qt-based tool for Zandronum/Skulltag servers!
#grandvoid funny stats

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

#50

Post by Catastrophe » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:15 am

Hats off to Leonard for doing a wonderful job documenting and fixing these issues.
Youtube Channel
Projects: Super Demon | Idiotic LMS | ZCC | Cata WeaponZ

Currently hooked on Overwatch and PUBattlegrounds.

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

#51

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:05 pm

Props to unknownna for finding this issue and leonard fixing the long chain of problems.

User avatar
AlexMax
FNF Team
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#52

Post by AlexMax » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:35 am

Leonard wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:31 am
Except for cl_ticsperupdate, I have fixed them all here.
I'm just making the PRs one by one to keep things simple.
Fantastic detective work.
The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the
universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet,
there remains time to create, to create, and escape.

Escape will make me God.

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

#53

Post by Torr Samaho » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:20 pm

AlexMax wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:18 pm
1. I'm not really sure what the numbers mean. I guess that the first number of In and Out are the instantaneous traffic going in and out in bytes, but that leads me to...
2. It updates very quickly...too quickly. I can't get a good feel for the first number at all because it keeps oscillating.
3. It's in a very small font in an unconfigurable corner of the screen.
4. It disappears when I quit the game. Most netgraphs in most games I've seen remain on forever until they're specifically turned off.
FYI, the numbers are "bytes during the last tic", "bytes during the last second" and "max bytes per second". The first three are for incoming traffic, the other three for outgoing traffic. The per tic numbers are actually not very meaningful, we could drop them.
AlexMax wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:18 pm
stat is kind of handy as a dumping ground of stat functions, but for something as important as a netgraph I'm not sure it's the best choice.
"stat nettraffic" is just what is available right now, I'm open for improving and extending it. Yesterday, I added information about packet loss to theses stats.
Razgriz wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:41 pm
Torr Samaho wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:13 am
We gave everybody countless of chances to test, we even almost literally begged people to test. If you are ignoring our many calls for testing, you can hardly blame us.
I'm more surprised at the fact something that wasn't tested thoroughly was still allowed the green light, sounds like a fault on both ends
We didn't make any changes to the tic buffer compared to 2.1.2, so there was no reason to test this explicitly and no need to green light it. So I don't see how we are at fault here. Overall testing was even enforced by TSPG, so what else should we have done?
Leonard wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:31 am
Except for cl_ticsperupdate, I have fixed them all here.
I'm just making the PRs one by one to keep things simple.
Great work! It looks like you tracked down the cause of https://zandronum.com/tracker/view.php?id=2859 and provided fixes. Judging from your comments and fixes, it looks like all of this affects 2.1.2 and 3.0 alike though, which means the ticket was correctly flagged with Product Version "2.1".

Thus, even though these fixes should certainly improve the unlagged behavior and it's great to have them, as far as I can tell right now, it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding why 2.1.2 and 3.0 seem to behave so differently from the perspective of the competitive players. So we still need a proper comparison of 2.1.2 with activated to 3.0 in order to find out whether 3.0 introduced problems that need to be taken care of.

User avatar
AlexMax
FNF Team
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 10:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0 is a significant downgrade from 2.1.2

#54

Post by AlexMax » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:34 am

I am running Lenoard's fixes on NJ and DE. I also have a vanilla 3.0 duel server set up as a point of comparison on port 10687.

In my view, it appears that shot registration has improved, but players still seem to jerk their way around the map, perhaps more badly.
The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the
universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet,
there remains time to create, to create, and escape.

Escape will make me God.

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

#55

Post by Ru5tK1ng » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:14 pm

I'm thinking that perhaps the jerking could have something to do with the cl_ticsperupdate?

https://zandronum.com/tracker/view.php?id=3317

This issue hasn't been addressed yet so it might be a factor.

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

#56

Post by Leonard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:56 pm

The culprit of the jittering is #3334.
As Alex reports, it is more noticable now due to the fact the ticbuffer was fixed: before, it would only empty halfway through and get stuck behind 1 tic for a while which made this flickering less noticable.
Thanks to him for helping with investigating this issue btw.

Post Reply