| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Charles37
   |
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:22:00 -
[31]
I'll read the rest of the blog after I've stripped my Maelstrom of it's current setup in favor of one the CCP sanctioned setup that uses all Civilian modules.
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:36:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Charles37
I'll read the rest of the blog after I've stripped my Maelstrom of it's current setup in favor of one the CCP sanctioned setup that uses all Civilian modules.
I'm tellin' ya, it can kill a Titan! Well, so long as the Titan isn't piloted and you have a lot of time.
|
|
Sedilis
Lead Farmers
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:56:00 -
[33]
Another nice blog.
Can we have more graphs showing the "Awesomeness rating" please 
|
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:56:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Charles37
I'll read the rest of the blog after I've stripped my Maelstrom of it's current setup in favor of one the CCP sanctioned setup that uses all Civilian modules.
I'm tellin' ya, it can kill a Titan! Well, so long as the Titan isn't piloted and you have a lot of time.
... and a hack to disable the titan's passive shield recharging ^^
--------------------------------------------------
|
Nye Jaran
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 21:59:00 -
[35]
Good blog, but your math is wrong here:
Quote:
A drop from approx 82% CPU to approx 35%, a 57% improvement
Should be a 47% improvement, or the pre /post number(s) are wrong.
|
ReddSky
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 22:16:00 -
[36]
Great Job CCP. This kind of investigation / improvement on module lag is what players have been asking for for ages. Please keep up this kind of work, much appreciated.
|
StonerPhReaK
Imperial Tau Syndicate
Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 22:26:00 -
[37]
Good Job CCP.Keep up the good work.
The mouths of many are heard far and wide when errything is borked,Fix it and hear nothing back in the way of thank you's.I guess silence is indeed golden.
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 22:50:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Nye Jaran
Good blog, but your math is wrong here:
Quote:
A drop from approx 82% CPU to approx 35%, a 57% improvement
Should be a 47% improvement, or the pre /post number(s) are wrong.
82% to 35% is an improvement of 47 percentage points but 1-35/82 is 0.57 or 57%.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 22:52:00 -
[39]
Damn it Explorer, beat me to it!
But yeah, what he said. Relative difference is what matters, not absolute.
|
|
R4 D2
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 23:02:00 -
[40]
- Corporate buzzword [Check]
- Mission runners used as guinea pigs [Check]
- Lag reduced by a significant percent [Check]
DevBlog aproved!
|
|
|
Elzon1
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 23:38:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Elzon1 on 13/09/2010 23:38:41
Good blog and using missioners as guinea pigs very nice 
So you guys are still looking for lag it seems. Perhaps a map would help? Maybe an interactive coding display of all the previous expansions compared against each other would help? Perhaps with such a display you could plug various data from player tests or thin client tests to test for errors or ineffeciencies. Maybe make lag appear as red through the map comparisons so you can "see" where the lag resides in the coding itself 
You guys already have something like this? 
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 00:06:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 14/09/2010 00:07:23
Sooo, Ive gotta ask: Why wasnt something this simple investigated sooner?
Regardless, good job! BTW, since this was such an easy catch, might I suggest searching for ALL instances of the server creating dummy instances of a ship (edit: or any object for that matter!) and querying them to see if those might be fruitful as well?
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 01:48:00 -
[43]
\o/ yay blogs!
"The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel."
|
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 02:30:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 14/09/2010 00:07:23
Sooo, Ive gotta ask: Why wasnt something this simple investigated sooner?
Regardless, good job! BTW, since this was such an easy catch, might I suggest searching for ALL instances of the server creating dummy instances of a ship (edit: or any object for that matter!) and querying them to see if those might be fruitful as well?
Because they didn't have the thin client infrastructure available earlier 
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 05:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Amy Garzan
5% is better than nothing. Keep up the good work.
Better than nothing?
I think you are failing to understand how much of a ****le in the pants moment finding a easy-to-apply 5% optimization in a mature high-performance system really is...
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 06:22:00 -
[46]
Great work!
A 5% drop in overall load is quite remarkable for a single optimization.
Do you use any profiling tools to find those bottlenecks/hot spots or do you have code reviews to find them?
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Amicus Morte
Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 07:56:00 -
[47]
Nice work. Did you get same results using missiles and guns or is that just an assumption ?
Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this!
Clear Skies - The Movie
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 08:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Nice work. Did you get same results using missiles and guns or is that just an assumption ?
All repeating modules.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Nye Jaran
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 12:55:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Nye Jaran
Good blog, but your math is wrong here:
Quote:
A drop from approx 82% CPU to approx 35%, a 57% improvement
Should be a 47% improvement, or the pre /post number(s) are wrong.
82% to 35% is an improvement of 47 percentage points but 1-35/82 is 0.57 or 57%.
Ah, didn't think of it like that. Suppose that's why you people all run the game and I just play the thing.
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 13:05:00 -
[50]
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Nice work. Did you get same results using missiles and guns or is that just an assumption ?
All repeating modules.
Since this is the case, would it not be a good idea, as several people have suggested, to consider making some common modules passive -- such as Damage/Drone Control Units?
Or is the current overhead for repeating modules low enough now that ~1 less repeating module per pew-pewing ship (and one less command per jumpin) is not enough of a win?
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician
Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
|
|
Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 14:08:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Nice work. Did you get same results using missiles and guns or is that just an assumption ?
All repeating modules.
Since this is the case, would it not be a good idea, as several people have suggested, to consider making some common modules passive -- such as Damage/Drone Control Units?
Or is the current overhead for repeating modules low enough now that ~1 less repeating module per pew-pewing ship (and one less command per jumpin) is not enough of a win?
Damn good question. CCP?
|
UVPhoenix2
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 14:28:00 -
[52]
Good work CCP. Dev updates like this are always fun to read. Keep 'em coming!
---
Always do whatever's next. |
EdgeOf Insanity
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 15:10:00 -
[53]
Edited by: EdgeOf Insanity on 14/09/2010 15:10:45
Nvm, someone already pwnt it.
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:42:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Since this is the case, would it not be a good idea, as several people have suggested, to consider making some common modules passive -- such as Damage/Drone Control Units?
I don't know how much of a win it would be offhand, but I have been keeping an eye on your thread over in the Assembly about it. Very interesting discussion, that.
|
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 20:59:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Since this is the case, would it not be a good idea, as several people have suggested, to consider making some common modules passive -- such as Damage/Drone Control Units?
I don't know how much of a win it would be offhand, but I have been keeping an eye on your thread over in the Assembly about it. Very interesting discussion, that.
Zagdul has suggested that you test this during an upcoming mass test; it would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to do a thin-client test and follow it up with a live test if it is promising. Even if it shaves 1/2% off the load, that's a nice little win, and best of all, you can dump all the work on another team! 
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician
Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Noun Verber
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 03:43:00 -
[56]
You claim that "players using modules is a very common thing", but offer no proof!
Shenanigans!
|
Melchior Grimm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 05:08:00 -
[57]
Thank you devs. I appreciate the blogs as well as the lag fixes.
|
Disgusting Carebear
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 07:45:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Noun Verber
You claim that "players using modules is a very common thing", but offer no proof!
Shenanigans!
Can we have some clarification on this please?
|
Joey's Mom
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 22:28:00 -
[59]
"low hanging *********", that is all!
|
Andrevv
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 01:46:00 -
[60]
Seeing as 0.0 combat involves manual cycling anyway, I don't expect this particular optimization to have any impact on fleet fights. Good job regardless :)
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Nice work. Did you get same results using missiles and guns or is that just an assumption ?
All repeating modules.
Originally by: Blog
Analysis showed that most of this CPU time was spent determining if the module was in the process of reloading whenever it was repeated.
Am I understanding this correctly, that any repeating module, regardless of whether it takes a charge, does a query to check if its charge group is empty?? because that is what the blog is implying... which seems kind of pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |