cyrex

Very problematic error this is. Warrios and mages have to be careful always when doint charge or blink else they fall off the map.

Or forget about this patch :lol: and enjoy a moonkin form running damn fast!!

I run it at home from a pc i have. IT has ubuntu 9.04 desktop edition (and no, server edition did not improve connection in either 8.04, 8.10 or 9.04. I did not find any difference in performance using desktop than i did with server other than the fact that it consumes less resources and it is in a neat console)

The vmap.ignore did make my connection better in the zones that i added there, i do not know how or why but for me i could see the performance gain. The targetpos was mostly to have less ping when several players were together. So after i put it in 5, i could have around 20 players on same place with less lag.

The CPU usage never goes above 10%.

When i have several players fighting, for example in the BG, the load goes to 8%. This are about 10 vs 10 players.

When i have an event that i make every now and then on gurubashi where all players gather to fight monsters and win prizes, there are about 40 players. In that moment it goes to 9 or 10%.

The memory usage also stays below 512mb. Around 300-400mb mostly.

When huge lag occurs the cpu usage stays between 8%-10%. I have never seen those huge 90+% mention by other players. I seen them wayyy back like in January when yes, i did in fact have some that got to 65%. But it went lower and lower until what i have this days.

Also on another note. I was thinking of buying to adsl 1024 connections to the same pc. Will Mangos support 2 IP address that point to the same database and same players online?

If you are asking why, then it is because of the limiting factor of my 64KiBs i have of upload. With 2 connections i would have 2 64KiBs that could help some players with lag. But i need to know if Mangos supports 2 connections to the same database without problem ( i know linux does).

Oki after almost 18 hours i can confirm the effect that mfour says about the impact of the compress packets.

On my connection for example, i have ADSL 1024 Kbps (Which is 128 KiBs Down / 64 Kibs Up). From that connection, players have 64 kilobytes of connection. The improvement must be very VERY little since in the 18 hours that was tested different compressions, there was no actual effect, at least for slow connections like mine.

It would be good if somebody could give some help for little connections like mine. For example, in my experience, the following did in fact improve the connection:

1. Setting vmap.ignoreMapIds to a group of maps that i have a list of

2. TargetPosRecalculateRange= 5

3. Visibility.Distance less than 90 but higher than 60. I have them in 66.

For the moment, this 3 settings did improve the ping for all players, also the can be more players together without so much lag.

Any other that maybe somebody else tested and knows from experience that you get an improvement on the server, for slow connections of course.

Well this is something nice to hear.

Thanks for the tips kerbe, I already set compression to 7 for some initial testing, will check out visibility too

When you finish with the testing i would like to know how it went and what you found out. Thank you.

So after this whole Paladin change, what other spell is still not working correctly? I am getting reports of Paladin been 100% correct.

Been using cell 16 (default) for 1 month now. I can say that in many aspects, the performance and stability are better. For example, i do not know how many days the server can be online but for me it lasted 3 weeks 4 days until i had it put offline because i was going to move the computer. In all that time, players said the performance was better than before. So this really has an impact on the server as a whole.

I think i remember those errors and maybe i got some of them in the log. Will go to check it out (7MB log)

I just patched with the default code and i got a lot better performance than without it. Less lag in general, more people can be on same zone without problem and even more people can cast spells on same zone without problem. At least i can see first hand a performance increase using the default patch without changing anything, i do not know if it is at 16 or 8.

omg which of all of this patches works without making the players stay on the other factions side. There are so many here now.

EDIT: Created a small post for stuff that we need to know when tweaking.

Just realized something: if an Alliance player goes into a group with a Horde leader, then they are turned into a Horde player and can be attacked by Alliance players and guards.

I second this. Happens for both sides. I used a group patch that it was not this one and it worked correctly, you did not change faction and you could still heal, trade with other factions.

Was testing but my testing PC just got burned. Need to work to buy new one damn it. Was looking to test this enhancement to stability. Sorry ambal.

@Ambal - Hello, have you tested to see how is the performance when many players are close by. For example, when i test server, players that are not on same place do not have lag, but when players get together, lets say battleground, attack a city or everyone on a same place, more than 16 players, then every players has lag. The lag goes out when players start to get away from other players. So basically lag comes when players are close to each other. Will this patch fix or modify this lag problem, do you think? or do you have better solution or configuration?

For user easier configuration after compilation, is there anyway to have this options available in the mangos.conf file. Am taking about the MAX_NUMBER_OF_CELLS and other #DEFINED options or some way to have the ability to change them from the mangos.conf file.

actually i just did some tests, creatures become visible at about 150 yards and then when you are moving away from them they stay visible for about 250-300 yards.

This is exactly right. Perfect

With full distance on my PC i can assure you i can see more than 100, much MUCH more than 100. This is for mobs, objects and everything. If i had to guess it would be about 30 to 50% more than 100. Checked on outland, kalimdor and icecrown with some friends.

Hopefully soon it will not matter . But yeah currently if you have more cells they become smaller and with that the maximum visibility distance decreases.

Hopefully...what do you know that we don't little guy...spill it!!

What is the recommended amount of cells to have

They're undead. Undead creatures do not have active digestive systems, thus they have no need for toilet paper (tp).

lollll hahhaha

So crit chance is it db oriented or dbc oriented. Where should the crit chance go?

You are wrong. Delays produce even more bugs because too much things changing over time.

Yes this has been noticed if you check stuff from 1.8.x and above. If you stay too long on an old version you will start getting bugs that can only be solved by updating.

But for the reason am writing in this post is to say

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

Not necessary. You just calc the SHA1 hash of the plaintext password on the server's end.

Thinking the same thing

How can i apply this patch using git.

Am trying to use

git pull git://github.com/dragonshard/mangos.git fec673c38f4888c64170cabe96dbd7f6523838d9

since i can't find the correct format.