Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Gang

Killing's Achievements


Square (6/54)



  1. Thanks for that if you need access to an account to compile on just shout.
  2. 5.2.1 on the majority but some are 5.1 the error is: ./MTAServer /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libm.so.3" not found
  3. You will have something already using the port as it says. Use "sockstat" to determine what.
  4. The freebsd compile has be done on a 5.3 box with dynamic libs and hence will only run on a 5.3 unfortunately we are not in a position to upgrade our 100+ machines to 5.3 so require a 5.2 compile. Should be just a quick recompile. If you dont have a box to do this one feel free to contact me.
  5. Good news indeed, thanks for the info JonChappell
  6. Yes I was quite well aware you where responding to Say_Ten as I read the thread, something it seems you didn't. He was repling to: Its clear here that slothman is, quite rightly suggesting, that its possible to have the server installed into multiple dirs; but as we are dealing with X servers ( where X is no fixed number ) this is not practical. So, as we do with all other servers, we would like to use the provided interface of specifing a config file per server instance. This was the reason I started this thread, to point out this was the case, which it has done thanks again MrBump. So then Prokopis which part of his post makes no sence? Lets break it down shall we? First I see him agreeing with my inital post, no rocket science here. Then stating that multiple installs are a waiste of space, which they are no matter how small the install. Finally backing up the previous statement by showing that, by adding the config file option it was the developers intent to be able to run multiple instances from one server install. Which MrBump has kindly confirmed was the case. So which part of that didnt you understand? Was there some hidden subtext that I didnt see. Or perhaps I have some mystical talent at following threads on forums? Hmm I think I just might have been refering to the following: And as he quite clearly understood the thread I can take no other meaning to your sentence than as an insult. Ooo dont think any one here said that "game" ment client install did they? Im sure we where all talking purely about the server here. Another misunderstanding / misread on my part? So if I give you what... lets pick a number out of my head 500 servers on 50 machines, and tell you to run them all from the different directory installs that doesnt shout at you "Logistical nightmare!!!" when you could so easily run 10 instances from the same install on each machine if you could just specify the MOTD.txt like you can ban file and log file within the core server config file? I suppose thats where you and many other people differ. Lets take a simple example: If the score where always wrong at the end of the game "it's just so minor" you "wouldn't bother coming here asking" for it to be fixed. Why do I think that you would! Just because is trivial and doesnt affect you personally doesnt mean that: 1. There's no point in mentioning it. 2. Its not an issue. 3. That it shouldnt be fixed. Its the small things in life that when added up can prove the largest burden. As you so rightly said, we have seen that the devs just "overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD" and will be rectified in a future patch so yes I will "leave it at that (and be happy)" thank you Not a lot from your comments. You seen to have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, you didnt comprehend most of which was said in a good portion of thread. Nuff said
  7. Unfortunatelly your not seeing the big picture here. Yes the size is small but its just as much a logistical issue as anything else. When you run a GSP like we do one of the key issues for supporting a game is that you only have one game install and then each game instance has its only set of configs, logs etc. As MrBump has acknowledged the facility to do just this was added with the config command line option but the MOTD.txt was missed. Its a simple thing, easy to miss and we look forward to getting it when the dev's can fit it in. There's no point in going off on one insulting people when you yourself dont comprehend the issue at hand. Please dont turn this into another thread like: http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?p=102973 Where someone who thinks then know everything has to have it spelled out for them that they dont.
  8. Thanks for that MrBump most appreciated.
  9. Hehe you are really showing ur self up now but I'll explain: packets/s per player * no. players * avg packet size = bandwidth required Ignoring header overhead etc this gives us: MTA: 160 * 20 * 20 = 64000 bytes / second Bandwith: 0.5Mb/s BF1942: 40 * 20 * 300 = 240000 bytes / second Bandwith: 1.8Mb/s Conclusion MTA doesnt use that much bandwith and hence is not a problem.
  10. I think your assuming a bit to much here peps. There no place where I've seen stating that this is a know issue and its being fixed. There is not even a mention of excessive packet count on these forums, there's high bandwidth mentioned several times even in the config but to be honest the bandwith used is small and not worth even mentioning its the high packet count thats affecting performance. If it is a know issue and its being worked on then great. As I said I'm just raising it so if it isnt know about then it is now
  11. Yes you try to make things better with each release but unless there's a major issue there's always the "I aint broke dont fix it" side especially when there are other things demanding your time. All I'm doing its just making people aware that it is an issue, this is what the forums for, so the project can move forward and hopefully it will get fixed in the next release.
  12. No I dont its a great addition to GTA but unless these issues are raised they wont get fixed will they
  13. I dont think you understand how network games work. They process information from clients at a give "fps" and send updates out at the same given fps. So its either the server is sending updates at a very high "fps" or its basicly relaying the updates from each client to each other client ( havent looked at that theory yet ). Either way the result is its sending too many packets. It either needs to combine updates in the case of relaying, or lower the "fps" so that it uses a more reasonable amount of packets. To give you some idea a 32 player COD server process just over 600 packets per second and that is processing a lot more information.
  14. Looks like a design issue with 15->20 players we are seeing 3000 packets a second from the MTA server 99% of which are 20 byte packets the rest 2 and 3 byte packets. This is causing lag and timeout of the server due to scheduling issues. Each client is getting 160 packets a second from the server. Is there a way to limit the server "fps" to something reasonable like 20 so each client only gets 20 packets a second?
  15. I think we are missing the point here. There is no way to tell the server to use a specific MOTD file e.g. Server1 motd_server1.txt Server2 motd_server2.txt This could be done by the addition of MOTDFile to the config file e.g. MOTDFile "server1/motd.txt" In the same vain as: LogFile "server1/mtaserver.log" BannedFile "server1/banned.lst" That are already availiable
  • Create New...