[bf1942] Punkbuster (Was: How could DICE agree to this??)

[Jon Wolberg]

I really dont know why people blame BBO.  All it *REALLY* does to the server is connect over and over on the remote console port to get status updates.

If that causes lag then the server has other issues.

Jon
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mario Massa 
  To: bf1942 at icculus.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:55 PM
  Subject: RE: [bf1942] Punkbuster (Was: How could DICE agree to this??)


  GOING OFF SUBJECT I TOO HAVE A FEW SERVERS AND EVERY USER HAS COMPLAINED OF
  LAG But it might be cause by BBO if installed if a few of you guys can get
  in touch with me to get to the bottom line of this lag issues
  Weaklinks at msn.com or http://bf1942.lightcubed.com pm me there called
  Weaklinks


  -----Original Message-----
  From: James Gurney [mailto:james at globalmegacorp.org] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:48 AM
  To: bf1942 at icculus.org
  Subject: [bf1942] Punkbuster (Was: How could DICE agree to this??)

  On 2/22/2005 7:46 PM, Neal Clayton wrote:
  > 2) An improved engine that doesn't suffer horribly from lag caused by 
  > punkbuster

  Speaking of which, has anyone else had reports of really bad server lag 
  in the last couple of weeks? I'm not talking network latency.. one of 
  our players has a network ping of 9ms, so that's not it.. he (as well as 
  many others) have complained about the server apparently running 
  sluggishly. Server cpu never goes over 40%.. I watched the console and 
  the server FPS was high, and utilitization reasonable.. On a whim, I've 
  disabled PB and so far, the reports seem to have indicated that the 
  problem is solved, although I'm not willing to take this as 100% proof 
  yet.. Mmm, 100% proof.. er, anyway, has anyone else seen similar behaviour?

  James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/bf1942/attachments/20050223/3409becf/attachment.htm>