Replace mx.exe or mxbin with one of the above files. The default location for mx.exe should be "C:\Program Files (x86)\MX Simulator". I'd keep a backup of the originals since these aren't well tested.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
Could we have so that erode is showing itself faster than now? Like split the waiting time in half? Could potentially make it easier if you're following someone
Wahlamt wrote:Could we have so that erode is showing itself faster than now? Like split the waiting time in half? Could potentially make it easier if you're following someone
do you want lag because THATS HOW YOU GET LAG. that would required double the bandwidth thats being transfered for erode
Wahlamt wrote:Could we have so that erode is showing itself faster than now? Like split the waiting time in half? Could potentially make it easier if you're following someone
do you want lag because THATS HOW YOU GET LAG. that would required double the bandwidth thats being transfered for erode
Wahlamt wrote:Could we have so that erode is showing itself faster than now? Like split the waiting time in half? Could potentially make it easier if you're following someone
do you want lag because THATS HOW YOU GET LAG. that would required double the bandwidth thats being transfered for erode
Please explain to me how that would require the double bandwidth, I'm very interested.
Wahlamt wrote:Could we have so that erode is showing itself faster than now? Like split the waiting time in half? Could potentially make it easier if you're following someone
do you want lag because THATS HOW YOU GET LAG. that would required double the bandwidth thats being transfered for erode
Please explain to me how that would require the double bandwidth, I'm very interested.
i more than likely used the wrong word on an account of being a dumba** but the amount of data being transfered to and from the server and clients would be doubled if the wait time for the applied effect was cut in half. correct me if im wrong here but thats how my mind picked it up.
sneakyKittyGaming wrote:
do you want lag because THATS HOW YOU GET LAG. that would required double the bandwidth thats being transfered for erode
Please explain to me how that would require the double bandwidth, I'm very interested.
i more than likely used the wrong word on an account of being a dumba** but the amount of data being transfered to and from the server and clients would be doubled if the wait time for the applied effect was cut in half. correct me if im wrong here but thats how my mind picked it up.
The data sent/received wouldn't double. The rate of which it would send would be the same, it would just only start to send/apply it sooner than it currently is. It's like getting your mail with overnight shipping or standard 3-4 days
Actually, if I didn't buffer up the erode points the overhead from the headers would more than double the bandwidth used for erode. Each packet can have up to 64 erode points so if you sent them one by one you'd have up to 64x the header overhead. On top of that, each point is merged with its neighbors if they're close enough and delta compressed, so to send them one at a time it would more than double due to lack of compression. Probably be about 4x more without the delta compression and merging.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.