Blur Busters Forums

As you can see, TAB ping is worth nothing if you compare 23 ms vs 84 ms.

here you go

Ok well you need to do the test offline with bots. If i read this correct, it takes 63ms to send/recieve commands on a local server.
That is fucking insane.

Yep the numbers are awful, and it explains why the game simply ignores all counter actions. Typical situation - Enemy peeks, i instantly peek away. I die because this input never arrives to opponents desynced matrix... When he crouches, he gets immortal for next quarter of second, because it takes AGES until the spray goes down at his head. 60ms desync in 2024... My numbers online:

ONLINE (farming the new case in DM, already 7 drops so far )

[Client] cl_ticktiming. . . . . TOTAL: 63.0ms (directly measured, may not be sum of below)
[Client] Sending User Commands . . : 24.7ms
[Client] FirstInput -> NetSend . : 14.2ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 5.0ms (assumed, RTT=10ms)
[Client] Server recv margin. . . : 5.5ms (cl_tickpacket_desired_queuelength = 0)
[Client] Server sim. . . . . . . . : 4.4ms
[Client] Receiving server updates. : 32.0ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 5.0ms (assumed, RTT=10ms)
[Client] Client recv margin. . . : 7.6ms (7.0ms + 0.7ms due to frame quantization)
[Client] Client interpolation. . : 0.0ms (cl_interp_ratio = 0)
[Client] Render interpolation. . : 15.6ms
[Client] Client sim + other . . .: 1.9ms
[Client] Render. . . . . . . . . : 1.9ms

OFFLINE (practice mode)

[Client] cl_ticktiming. . . . . TOTAL: 56.1ms (directly measured, may not be sum of below)
[Client] Sending User Commands . . : 20.6ms
[Client] FirstInput -> NetSend . : 14.4ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 0.0ms (assumed, RTT=0ms)
[Client] Server recv margin. . . : 6.2ms (cl_tickpacket_desired_queuelength = 0)
[Client] Server sim. . . . . . . . : 1.7ms
[Client] Receiving server updates. : 34.0ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 0.0ms (assumed, RTT=0ms)
[Client] Client recv margin. . . : 15.6ms (14.9ms + 0.7ms due to frame quantization)
[Client] Client interpolation. . : 0.0ms (cl_interp_ratio = 0)
[Client] Render interpolation. . : 15.6ms
[Client] Client sim + other . . .: 0.6ms
[Client] Render. . . . . . . . . : 2.2ms

EDIT: added hardware specs:
Ryzen 7800X3D, GF 4070 SUper@3Ghz, 6000Mhz 32GB EXPO RAM, cheap mobo, cheap PSU, cheap case, cheap cooler, WD Black 1TB SSD, 280Hz VG259QM OD120.

joseph_from_pilsen wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 17:44

[Client] Render. . . . . . . . . : 1.9ms

Can you give specs of your system?
Your rendertime is 4ms lower than mine, thats insane.
I am on AMD 5800x, 5700xt.

SERVER:
[Client] cl_ticktiming. . . . . TOTAL: 94.5ms (directly measured, may not be sum of below)
[Client] Sending User Commands . . : 42.6ms
[Client] FirstInput -> NetSend . : 14.3ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 23.0ms (assumed, RTT=46ms)
[Client] Server recv margin. . . : 5.3ms (cl_tickpacket_desired_queuelength = 0)
[Client] Server sim. . . . . . . . : 2.5ms
[Client] Receiving server updates. : 48.7ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 23.0ms (assumed, RTT=46ms)
[Client] Client recv margin. . . : 7.4ms (5.8ms + 1.6ms due to frame quantization)
[Client] Client interpolation. . : 0.0ms (cl_interp_ratio = 0)
[Client] Render interpolation. . : 15.6ms
[Client] Client sim + other . . .: 1.8ms
[Client] Render. . . . . . . . . : 0.9ms

LOCAL:
[Client] cl_ticktiming. . . . . TOTAL: 56.5ms (directly measured, may not be sum of below)
[Client] Sending User Commands . . : 20.7ms
[Client] FirstInput -> NetSend . : 13.8ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 0.0ms (assumed, RTT=0ms)
[Client] Server recv margin. . . : 7.0ms (cl_tickpacket_desired_queuelength = 0)
[Client] Server sim. . . . . . . . : 1.0ms
[Client] Receiving server updates. : 33.8ms
[Client] Network latency . . . . : 0.0ms (assumed, RTT=0ms)
[Client] Client recv margin. . . : 15.7ms (14.6ms + 1.1ms due to frame quantization)
[Client] Client interpolation. . : 0.0ms (cl_interp_ratio = 0)
[Client] Render interpolation. . : 15.6ms
[Client] Client sim + other . . .: 1.5ms
[Client] Render. . . . . . . . . : 1.0ms

Minimum 60ms, better than before, but still bad Valve.

ahead wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2024, 04:28

Minimum 60ms, better than before, but still bad Valve.

Csgo was sh/it in beta stage and next several years after, so give Valve a chance, please

InputLagger wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 17:54

ahead wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2024, 04:28

Minimum 60ms, better than before, but still bad Valve.

Csgo was sh/it in beta stage and next several years after, so give Valve a chance, please

Another 25 years?

Buffering to smooth over packet loss (cl_interp_ratio) increases total value. Who have tested it? (Buffering to smooth over packet loss) should i put it to 1/2 packets or none?