btt

- pull me up on the one thing in my post you don't agree with... I was just trying to say that I don't notice lag in other online games until pings go above ~200, whereas I find the lag quite obvious in MTA when it gets above ~50 (though admittedly, not unplayably so). Just my opinion, and I guess it could be due to lots of other people having low fps. Not trying to bash the devs - you've all done a fantastic job getting it to work at all, let alone as stable and as fast as it is. Just observing the difference prediction/extrapolation seems to have.

It is client-side prediction. An extension of this (which I believe all recent online games use) is server-side extrapolation, i.e. the server knows the current ping of the client very accurately, and when it receives an update, it forecasts the actual current position of the player from position, velocity and current acceleration. This forecasted value is sent to the clients rather than the actual received position. Obviously, this isn't very useful if the server isn't aware of the physics and layout of the game (afaik, MTA servers are 'dumb', so they can't do this yet. Maybe never?). It also relies on an accurate (ping-aware) clock-sync between all clients and the server. Is this in place with MTA? I think these techniques are what make other online games playable even with pings ~200, whereas MTA tends to be too warpy at any higher than ~50.

Last time I was on DJ-Mills server, he did have a spawnkill script - if you killed someone soon enough after they respawned, you were admin slapped to death

Sometimes the server doesn't detect the right skin (try !skin - if it says you're an 'Unknown' skin, /kill and respawn). Then the scripts should work.

Sorry - just made me laugh. It seems about as useful as counting with pics...

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html lol

Macs running OSX afaik are running a BSD kernel and it's POSIX compatible (practically) - OSX is as near as you get to Linux without actually running it. You should know though that WineX isn't an emulator, and will only run on an x86 CPU...

Kinda knew that

It can be as guaranteed as it currently is... The point was an open source client/server is no less secure than a closed source one. In fact it tends to be more secure - many eyes and all that.

There's a simple fix used in an open source fps (Cube) - most servers will only allow the official pre-compiled, pre-hashed client to connect. You can host a 'hacked' server that will allow user complied or modified clients to connect (for development or cheaters ) without disrupting 'approved' servers. Do this, and people can rebrand (as they can already with a hex editor and a CRC calculator), but they can never get a following, 'cos to play with lots of people, you have to use the pre-compiled 'endorsed' client to connect to the busy legit servers.

That's a matter of terminology - check out definition #2 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hacker Open source doesn't mean anyone can update the code - it simply means everyone can VIEW the code, and submit patches if they want - it doesn't HAVE to be added to the code unless the team want it to be. Google for Open Source and Security, and you'll see lots of people in the industry citing arguments that open source is MORE secure because ANYONE in the community can work on security patches. As long as enough good people are working for the project instead of against it, it will be more secure. Don't you think some of those malicious hackers may prefer to show off their coding skills by submitting bug patches rather than by programming bots / cheats / etc. Just something to consider before you leap to conclusions...

It's surely easier console first, then PC. Would you like to try and squeeze GTAVC PC ver. (using about 200Mb RAM on my machine) onto a PS2 with 32Mb? Ick. PS2 will also have loads of custom chips - PCs can emulate that functionality. Consoles are not powerful or general enough to emulate stuff that a PC can do.

Know it's a bit off topic and spammish, but check out http://www.linuxfromscratch.org - you can build your own system and learn the real inner workings of Linux. My install is MUCH quicker and smaller than any distro I've tried. btw, main plus point of Linux for me is you can do practically anything you want for free - the main compiler and libraries are completely free (as in beer and speech), and open source software generally runs much better on a UN*X style OS... No shelling out £700 for a decent MS IDE (and yes I know about dev-cpp, etc). There's just much more freedom to do exactly what you want as you have source code for 99% of the programs your computer is running, and with many programs, there are much more frequent releases. If MTA were open source....well there would likely be much more frequent releases (and maybe more hackers), as the community could contribute back to the code base.

MTA works by modifying memory, Wine / Cedega works by emulating system calls such as GlobalAlloc, and all the memory allocation stuff. This means you can't peek like you can in Windows unless the app doing the peeking is also running under Cedega. If you look at the debug output from MTA failures under Cedega, it's complaining the raw socket access isn't supported. This seems to suggest that manipulating sockets / packets is not (fully) supported under Cedega (it CERTAINLY isn't allowed in Linux at the user level - you must have root privileges, and if you want to play around with memory in Linux in an 'emulator' with root privileges, you need your head examining ) When XP came out and granted raw socket access, a lot of UN*X people were really pissed because you can write dangerous programs (spoofing IP applications, etc). This suggests MTA may not be possible without a NATIVE Linux GTA.