Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
paybak

:Question for CRS. Is this a hack ?

10 posts in this topic

[From the FORUM TOS: 8. Do not post threads about cheats, hacks or exploits. Do not post on this subject even if it is complaints, accusations, observations or commentary. In addition, do not post links to any site that contains either content of, or other links to, cheats, hacks or exploits.

If you want to report what you feel is a cheat, hack or exploit, email the report with as much evidence as possible to gophur@playnet.com.]

[From the GAME TOS:

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION

Unless otherwise specified, the Playnet.com Sites/Services are for your personal

and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display,

perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer,

or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Playnet.com Sites/Services. ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, lol i'm not crs.

However I'm pretty sure any change to the exe will be seen as a "hack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st, lol i'm not crs.

However I'm pretty sure any change to the exe will be seen as a "hack".

well hmm...

i guess once you let them know that you are trying this i

m sure they can un ban you. but i would speak to rafter or bloo first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS doesn't often visit this forum. However, I will forward a link to this thread to see if I can get an answer for you.

I would not use the program till you hear from them first though.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am running Windows XP PRO and I know there are other programs that can set affinity and priority but I'd rather not have another program running in the tray.

But what benefit would this have?

Windows automatically assigns the game a higher priority than anything else you're running, and there is no reason to set processor affinity no matter how many cores your CPU has; WWIIOL only uses one core, and again, Windows is smart enough to handle this automatically.

In terms of performance, I'm pretty confident that no controlled test would ever demonstrably show any difference whatsoever, with or without manual affinity and priority changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what benefit would this have?

Windows automatically assigns the game a higher priority than anything else you're running, and there is no reason to set processor affinity no matter how many cores your CPU has; WWIIOL only uses one core, and again, Windows is smart enough to handle this automatically.

In terms of performance, I'm pretty confident that no controlled test would ever demonstrably show any difference whatsoever, with or without manual affinity and priority changes.

So why does task manager show ~50% activity on my second processor when i enable it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what benefit would this have?

Windows automatically assigns the game a higher priority than anything else you're running, and there is no reason to set processor affinity no matter how many cores your CPU has; WWIIOL only uses one core, and again, Windows is smart enough to handle this automatically.

In terms of performance, I'm pretty confident that no controlled test would ever demonstrably show any difference whatsoever, with or without manual affinity and priority changes.

Windows assigns my game to CPU 0 and normal priority. Mine runs best when I enable the second core and set priority to above normal, and as stated above when I look at task manager while in game my 1st processor is maxed out. Enabling the second then shows another 30% of the CPU being used. So I'm assuming I'm processor bound in game. I have a core 2 Duo T7400 which I believe is 2.2ghz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what benefit would this have?

Windows automatically assigns the game a higher priority than anything else you're running, and there is no reason to set processor affinity no matter how many cores your CPU has; WWIIOL only uses one core, and again, Windows is smart enough to handle this automatically.

In terms of performance, I'm pretty confident that no controlled test would ever demonstrably show any difference whatsoever, with or without manual affinity and priority changes.

When moving WWIIOL from core 0 to core 1 and 2 and moving Fraps to core 0 and 3 and Teamspeak/vent to core 3 it makes a diffrence.

Moving the game from core 0 to cores 1 and 2 gives me a 5-10 fps boost on avg.

Go try it some time it does make a diffrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what benefit would this have?

Windows automatically assigns the game a higher priority than anything else you're running, and there is no reason to set processor affinity no matter how many cores your CPU has; WWIIOL only uses one core, and again, Windows is smart enough to handle this automatically.

In terms of performance, I'm pretty confident that no controlled test would ever demonstrably show any difference whatsoever, with or without manual affinity and priority changes.

WWIIOL actually has a number of worker threads, in particular NetCode2 is threaded allowing the game to offload a significant amount of networking code to another core where available.

The threaded work is typically work that will take an extended wall-clock time to elapse and so would cause a stutter if it was performed in the main thread. These are spooled off to one of several worker threads to be completed in spare CPU cycles or on a spare core.

With 2 cores, this provides a performance improvement. With more cores, however, more of these workers can be executed concurrently which allows them to conflict with each other inducing a mutex backoff. This is the same issue affecting a whole host of games including the upcoming Conan game.

It's one of those low-level minutae details that modern day programmers are moving away from with things like C#. "Don't worry about allocations, RAM is cheap". True, but every operating-system level memory allocation in a multi-threaded app involves a mutex unless you use thread-local storage and your own allocator.

The baffled look when you tell a "modern" coder "do you realize your 1,500 memory allocations in this loop means 3,000 mutex operations?" and seeing the baffled look of bewilderment as they ask "but I'm only calling alloc, where is the mutex?" -- priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.