Re: [Algorithms] Game loop timings

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

> Hard-code PC FPS players will turn off vsync at all, right?

As I was told by one, they will turn vsync _on_, make sure machine runs
exactly at e.g. 60 fps and then use a PS/2 mouse with custom driver so they
can tune mouse sampling rate to be multiple of 60Hz, like 240Hz, or
something, IIRC. This gives them guaranteed fixed (and very low) latency.

> Do you find there's a market for hard-core FPS players these days?

Yes, their time is passing, but they are still able to make much noise. If
you know what I mean.

> Do you think the 20 Hz command rate has something to do with it?
> I think that with a fast physics rate/command rate, that'd be solved.

Yes, of course. 20Hz was a Bad Idea. Just making a point of why input
latency is bad. ("Moral of the story: don't introduce latency where you
don't have to.") Triple buffering adds one frame of latency, so that's why
triple buffering is not a good solution to smooth out CPU spikes caused by
different number of physics steps between two frames. Better solution is not
to have CPU spikes, if possible. :)

> The damaged AI is going to make a new decision about what its goals
> are a few steps later, yes. Most humans don't have infinitely fast
> reaction times, after all :-) If you damage something enough to kill
> it, well, death doesn't need lots of cycles (mostly just queuing
> notification messages). Is yours different?

LOL, that's true alright. :) I was referring to the parts of AI that deal
with animation and physical/input response (double jumping, rocket jumping,
etc.), not decision making.

> Fair enough. Hopefully now "igrok" (the original poster of this thread)
> has enough data to support his decision one way or the other.

Correct.

Cheers,
Alen