BF2S Forums BF2/2142 Hit reg fix

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

Dice has never explained the context surrounding the network commands (interp and extrap are general concepts -- the specific implementation details are unknown), so changing them is basically trial & error.   

I've tried changing them numerous times.  Sometimes it felt better, sometimes it felt worse.  Sometimes I couldn't even remember what I'd set them to.  Eventually I stopped bothering and I just use the defaults.  I've yet to see any actual evidence that changing the settings yields an advantage (other than unsubstantiated cries of "omg it works for me!11").

I am extremely sceptical that this program does anything worthwhile.  What's the point in writing a settings 'optimiser' when nobody actually knows what the settings do in the first place?  How can you claim to optimise something you do not fully understand?

For all we know, half of these settings aren't even hooked up to the game.

ph4s3 wrote:

I'm with arnie_ze_austrian... Sounds like a bunch of bullshit.  If it was that easy to fix hitreg, the programmers would've built it into the game with any one of the numerous patches.

BORNKILLERS wrote:

No it isn't  the tutorial even shows the error , Interpolation time is  changed twice  even if it was corrected it wont make no affect on the game  unless you know someone within dice were only guessing what corrects the hit box's people have being changing  these settings for years believing they actually do something when its all placebo effect.

BORNKILLERS wrote:

No it isn't  the tutorial even shows the error , Interpolation time is  changed twice  even if it was corrected it wont make no affect on the game  unless you know someone within dice were only guessing what corrects the hit box's.
People have being changing  these settings for years believing they actually do something when its all placebo effect.

BORNKILLERS wrote:

Wallpaper wrote:

hiberNative wrote:

i agree.
YAAY caaake!!! *eats a rock*

STFU! Rocks are tasty!

I take it you are about 14 ?

BORNKILLERS wrote:

Wallpaper wrote:

hiberNative wrote:

i agree.
YAAY caaake!!! *eats a rock*

STFU! Rocks are tasty!

I take it you are about 14 ?

Last edited by Guy.Buddy.Friend (2008-07-05 16:45:56)

Arnie_Ze_Austrian wrote:

You still haven't explained how you've calculated what is 'optimal' for any given ping.  Even based on empirical estimates, you're just going to be guessing.  Moreover, network settings are typically dependent on numerous things including ping, bandwidth, stability, packet loss etc.

This reminds me of the old pushlatency cvar for HL.  Valve eventually removed it because various people kept setting it to totally stupid values that actually decreased the quality of play.  Why?  'cause one day someone claimed some magic number was best, and Captain Placebo and his mates jumped on the bandwagon.

It's cool that you (or whoever authored it) went to the trouble of making something like this; I just think it's pointless to use it if the author can't explain the rationale behind it.

~Smokey~ wrote:

Wallpaper wrote:

Eh, whatever. If it makes it seem like my shots are reging, and prevents me from going into a rage because that-asshole-killed-me-even-though-I-put-30-bullets-in-his-head-WTF, its good enough for me