just Raise Object Limit on 100 player server? are they stupid?

24/7 100 PLAYER TF2 SERVER INFO
search for the "shounic" tag in the server browser, server name is "shounic trenches"
or: add | 45.62.160.71:27015 | to your server browser favorites
also / discord -- important updates, info, voting, report a player & appeals: bans/mutes
(7800X3D hosted in chicago, physgun.com bare metal)
channel discord --- / discord
channel patreon --- / shounic
channel tracker --- trello.com/b/L3B65jUX
[ todo list / current progress on upcoming videos / channel roadmap ]
feedback --- forms.gle/bkuGF6attQrRPc6o9
custom files --- pastebin.com/raw/e32aG4nP
[ hud / crosshairs / hitsound / killsound / gfx cfg ]
Music: BananaSlug ( / user-426347780 )
big thanks to:
mitch, rubat, ficool, & sappho :)
FAQ:
Q: How did you make that? What editing software do you use?
A: I use Adobe Photoshop, Premiere Pro & After Effects. Photoshop for image editing and thumbnails. Premiere Pro for compositing and After Effects for motion graphics (the fancy animations).

[@user-vd3rn7xi5r]

Shonic is the kind of guy to make a map with 11000 path nods just to play with the source spaghetti monster

[@FreddOtaku]

source spaghetti monster is an accurate name

[@erick5928]

Biblically accurate source spaghetti monster

[@randompersonontheinterwebs]

"oh god where do i go" "pls stop" "hl2.exe has stopped responding."

[@debbiebernhardt5406]

The maximum enforced by valve, so send a request to have it set between 1000 min to 5000 max for user control

[@Kacper42PL]

Truly

[@Rift_cz_sk]

As someone who used to work on custom tf2 maps , the object/ item limit is just scary as hell

[@spa7]

BOOOO i Am A oBjEcT lImItEr OoOoOo

[@JetFalcon710]

​@@spa7 AAAAAAA

[@ModdedProp]

0/2048

[@skipmanghondarg]

As someone who used to work with SDK, HOW TF DO YOU TURN SNAP-TO-GRID BACK OOOON?!!!

[@Rift_cz_sk]

@@skipmanghondarg I DON'T KNOW MAN I cry every night it's probably somewhere on top idk bro

[@throwawwy53]

"i tried adding 11000 path nodes, but hammer had trouble compiling the map" brother Hammer has trouble compiling my maps with 0 train paths, you're lucky the 7k variant even compiled edited to fix grammer errer

[@iriswav7379]

Hammer build different

[@cheesepop7175]

compiling*

[@BurningBridgeStudios]

@@cheesepop7175 That's literally how he spelled it.

[@vinaythakur4742]

​@@BurningBridgeStudiosliterally*

[@Romotis]

​@@vinaythakur4742that's literally how he speled it

[@subjectdelta7210]

i’d gladly sacrifice hats for 50 player games

[@Luna-Lux]

t. Has no unusuals

[@Romotis]

​@@Luna-Luxmuh shiny pixels on a sooner or later dead game

[@noahhill841]

​ok and?

[@Nitosa]

​@@Romotisthat's true for every online videogame ever, it's more for personal enjoyment which was the whole point of videogames.....

[@eco1969]

@@Luna-Lux t. Has unusuals

[@Noah_Levy]

Since the office plant and the janitor increased the max player count to begin with, it would be interesting to see if they'd adjust the object limit.

[@ThatOneDudeThatLikesPurple]

"the office plant" LMAOOO

[@fourlionnn]

The moment I read "office plant", I imagined the plant in a pot staying on a chair infront of computer, and all this on cs_office

[@Cinnamowo]

Rubat is a really cool guy, always loved the stuff they did for Gmod

[@duckonaroll1913]

ficool is a g too i could not live without hammer++

[@keli5]

they actually work for facepunch, the creators of gmod now!

[@tempname8263]

Rubat has been deleting a lot of features lately in Gmod, irreversibly breaking addon support in many places, absolutely love him

[@unknao]

@@tempname8263 Elaborate please.

[@NinetyEight418]

Rubat is not multiple people

[@soupofundeniablewisdom1629]

I think simply doubling the object limit would already solve most things. At best, pushing it up to 4 times it's size (8192) is more than enough to keep 100 player servers entertained. It could also let VScript users experiment more with things, since the object limit would not be a big issue.

[@Kacpa2]

Yeah it would be more than enough and there would be no need to patch the renderer.

[@Spelo1]

​@@Kacpa2Have u watched the video? Making object limit bigger also requires patching client's tf2, which would be it's own can of worms

[@ragibmahfuz5241]

@@Spelo1 if devs updated tf2, its fixed

[@Spelo1]

@@ragibmahfuz5241 And what are the chances that they would do that just to cater to some minor player base that just wants to play on a 100 players server?

[@archduke0000]

@@Spelo1 his point is that it's possible, not that it's plausible. Stop being argumentative for the sake of it, you KNOW what he meant.

[@Vvix0]

Purely theoretically, how hard would it be for Valve to patch higher object limit to TF2? We know from the video that it's not that hard to just do, but what would be the consequences of doing so? I imagine there'd be some sort of domino effect of more things breaking after increasing the limit? Or would it really be just simple as that?

[@nero7699]

the server room gets a bit warmer

[@gameworkerty]

Good news it's 20F in Seattle this week ​@@nero7699

[@FumbleSquid]

Not hard, but as shounic said, there may be unintended bugs down the line we don't know about. Also it's not like it needs to be raised for what Valve intends TF2 to be, so they have no reason to shake anything up. It'd be nice and maybe something we could've seen with a more active dev team, but probably wont happen now.

[@Vvix0]

@@FumbleSquid I'd argue that raising the limit would benefit mappers. Latest Halloween maps are already close to the limit, with bloodwater being crashable, even outside of 100 player servers. There's even a person in this comment section, complaining about the object limit as a mapper.

[@nnikitov57]

Yes, it's just changing a number, it's that simple. The only consequence is a potential higher server/client load, that's it, there are no other consequences .

[@IanZamojc]

This feels like something valve could build into the client themselves where the server can dictate the entity limit.

[@drgabi18]

Me, the server, sending the client an order to allocate 2TB of ram for objects

[@leithaziz2716]

Considering jumping into a random community server can lead to you installing several mega-to gigabytes of space for assets, you would probably need to put a description if possible.

[@IanZamojc]

@@drgabi18 Who said anything about it being uncapped? You raise the entity limit in the client to a sufficiently high value (8000 to 16000), then let the server tell the client to match its entity limit. This lets server admins host more detailed maps and more players if they have the memory and bandwidth capacity.

[@8Kazuja8]

The absolute simplest way to go about it is if Valve simply just raised the hard object limit in their code and updated the game for everyone. This is something they'd probably have to do with server-set object caps anyway, and at that point, they might as well just enable it for all servers. For each additional bit, the amount of allowed entities doubles, so even just one more bit would probably be enough for 100 players even. Only problems I could see with this is that a higher limit could probably hurt performance/playability on the very low end of PCs(probably nothing to worry about these days though considering how old the game is) or that it might introduce some follow-up bugs they wouldn't feel like ironing out. With 100 players being explicitly unsupported they probably won't bother because of these reasons.

[@kingofbleh]

Possibly, but there would need to be a cap. Past that, the thing that makes this fix infeasible is the expectation valve ever would.

[@catfree]

jonkler references are always appreciated

[@ebux9885]

Unfortunately you were not appreciated by your parents

[@catfree]

@@ebux9885 D:

[@thatone_awesome]

why are you crediting jonkler instead of man? are you stupid?

[@Jornker]

The jonkler meme is so confusing for me lol

[@tickaten]

Why did ​@@ebux9885 say that? Are they stupid?

[@kodicraft]

I think it's funny to look back now on how eager a lot of people were to install random third party software to play tf2 while faceit was popular in the community. I guess the same people would think it's perfectly fine to install a program that can modify executables for the sake of silly hats

[@Archimedes.5000]

Given how many people lose their accounts because they download a random exe from an obvious scammer, I think there would be a lot of people willing to download that. Besides it's not like "downloading a program for hats" is anything wrong, you are forced to download potentially dangerous executables all the time and usually are fine, welcome to windows I guess

[@vel0city96]

2048 objects/entities would've been a good limit back in 2007. Modern hardware can process all of that at a rate not even dreamt of back in 2007, so actually officially raising the limit to say 4096 wouldn't hurt anybody and would open up a whole new playground for mappers and modders.

[@Nykomil]

A major portion of the playerbase being on the edge of the game becoming unplayable

[@leonardo9259]

yeah, just look at bloodwater, great map frfr

[@DJTimeLock]

would be even better if they let the server decide the size. Would allow more customization. But the default being 4096.

[@megapussi]

@@Nykomil This would only be relevant on community maps that use more than 2048 objects. None of the maps that currently exist in the game would be affected. The game becoming unplayable for someone doesnt matter if its only unplayable on a map that already was impossible to make.

[@BackwardsPancake]

@@DJTimeLock Yeah! To be nice, they could also build a "handshake" for it on the client side, so it'll warn you that "playing on this server is going to use additional memory and bandwidth", and stop the connection process if your hardware is really ancient and can't take it.

[@triumphator4714]

Arkham insanity really gets to him.

[@Tuntor689]

shounic must’ve gotten the title of the video in the comments a lot, because despite the fact he’s addressed this issue in a previous video, he still had to make an entirely new one on why it doesn’t really work

[@heliusuniverse7460]

It would be nice if valve doubled the object limit in a future update

[@pixcore7221]

It would be nice if valve made a future update

[@mtdfs5147]

It would be nice if valve wasn't an abusive father figure

[@dsobransingh]

It would be nice if valve

[@gerardonavarro3400]

It would be nice

[@seba_dud]

it would be

[@maliciousfry]

"Exponential Painful" is a VERY good wait to describe programming in general.

[@cewla3348]

i forgot to add the library im using in ONE function's parameters, so now its bugged and i have to do some boring stuff

[@Flashyface]

I wouldn't mind if Valve raised the limits for every game to what CSGO's limits are.

[@Shuflduf]

Surprisingly, I find your server much more enjoyable to play on compared to the casual servers. Since I'm as f2p, being able to call for a medic is an actual lifesaver. And the dopamine hit of hitting a nasty crocket into the enemy team and getting 8 kills that I didn't deserve makes it infinitely better.

[@Jun.Suzuki]

just spend $5 retard

[@or6060]

i do miss not having sprays. 100 sprays on a server would be amazing

[@JM-dq7xn]

wait sho enabled sprays some time before, they're gone again?

[@lilsos6892]

@@JM-dq7xnthey are still there. Just 60 outta 100 playere can use them. If your index is 61 and higher - you won’t be able to spray

[@or6060]

@@JM-dq7xn when i played nobody had them

[@jackraptor695]

I miss my furry spray :(

[@lilsos6892]

@@jackraptor695 You were behind classic: "Today we are doing an experiment to find out" "how much cock can a single boipussy take", mr. Mathf?

[@floridaboigaming6961]

2:58 bro thought he was Todd Howard 💀

[@sprucewillis9000]

Havent't played TF2 in a while, but I absolutely love the epic saga of the 100 Player Server

[@tuduscz6836]

I was thinking if the limits of 32bit architecture would be potential problem too like if all 100 players had theirs unique cosmetics it might be possible to reach the 4 GB limit

[@AsP3cT.199]

Is there a lore reason?

[@qoombert]

are they stupid?

[@luigibudd]

why doesnt valve just fix all the bugs? are they stupid??

[@TotallyNormalBee]

is valve artistic?

[@brastionskywarrior6951]

the insane player density + no hats on the server leads to some interesting phenomenon -since there are no hats players look interchangable, + with the great player density spy can actually disguise and have it work sometimes since everyone blends into eachother. Assuming the map is big enough to not get choked out by projectile spam. Which balances spy out -stock stickies + the base jumper is actually good, since players still dont look up and are dense enough to where most stickies fired will hit something. This also gives sniper a new niche since hes one of the only classes easily able to quickly shoot a demo bomber out of the air -despite mvm levels of player density the gas passer is still garbage. Since it doesnt do meaningful damage and any player hit by it is about to die or near a medic anyways

[@eatingmage603]

Why don’t they just port everything over to Source 2? It would solve every one of their problems, including world hunger.

[@VoxAstra-qk4jz]

Valve said no

[@TeamSprocket]

Valve devs are too busy making the 100th game that will never release

[@yousorooo]

@@TeamSprocketValve used to make games, now they just make money.

[@leithaziz2716]

@@yousorooo Valve's issue is moreso a unique case of only focusing on making games as long as they make something that pushes technology that justifies it. Valve is more of a tech company nowadays and don't have much interest in the gaming market.

[@Cheerybelle]

lol. lmao.

[@Tharronis]

Could you maybe patch the server to be able to handle more than 2048 objects, and try a couple methods to make sure the client only ever needs to handle a max of 2048 per update tick? (Start alternating which set is sent to the client each tick? Pick entities within range of each client or something much more processing intensive?) Then your server won't hard crash any time the entity limit is breached which will increase stability, and you wouldn't need clients to patch.

[@nerdycatgamer]

The issue is basically the game reserves a buffer of memory to store all the objects, and the entity limit is just a hardcoded constant for the size of this buffer. Both the server and the client store a copy of this buffer and use it for reference, so they need to be the same size. To have the server have a different entity limit than the client would probably* require complete redoing of the routines for transfering the data. At this point, we're changing the binary executable of the game so it's no longer the same one serviced by steam, which could cause the problems listed in the video (needing a program to patch it, VAC, etc). *I haven't actually looked at the code myself. This is an educated guess based on what is shown in the video and my own knowledge.

[@grumpykitten4566]

That's what I was thinking. Like trying to cull out any objects from the servers' master object list to fit within the 2040 limit for each player. That can even be done in parallel which by dear god we have a lot of cores doing jack.

[@nikkiofthevalley]

I have a feeling that the client won't like that, assuming this is possible in the first place. Creating and destroying 2000 objects every tick cannot possibly be good for a system not designed to do that.

[@Tharronis]

@@nikkiofthevalley Yea that seems very possible, but it could be interesting to try. For science!

[@MicahJohn21659]

​@@nikkiofthevalleyif done properly then it won't be destroying 2000 objects every tick Similar methods have worked for quake 3 based games which is a very similar networking model

[@hedwig7s]

Out of curiosity would it be possible to modify object replication to: Replicate all essential objects Replicate non-essential objects based on distance until hitting the limit

[@saiv46]

I thought about that too, the problem is that the server needs to constantly keep track of everyone's object list for every single player, which is bad for performance.

[@ZugTheDragon]

I've had that idea too. I guess the performance argument is a good one, but perhaps if someday more server power is available for cheap it'd be an interesting thing to try

[@hedwig7s]

I mean I know games like Roblox use a similar replication technique so it might work

[@hydraulicsystems332]

@@saiv46 the server already does that? Correct me if I'm wrong but the server doesn't tell you the state of some one's hat if they are out of line of sight, otherwise you could wallhack, or do they just tell you everything on the map at all times?

[@Mernom]

@@saiv46Honestly, server performance is less of a concern, as it can easily be made into a more powerful machine. I would say that the technical complexity of making it work is more of an issue.

[@bikutoso]

It probably would be more effort than what it's worth, and could have massive issues. But would it be possible to further modify the server to send a truncated object list, where objects ranked low to high importance is removed to meed the client limit?

[@autochaosyt1160]

Whats the point? Its much harder to get pñayer object limit, send objects with priority to each different player then just not doing all of that. On top of requiring a third party app to even join with chance of getting vac

[@autochaosyt1160]

Whats the point? Its much harder to get pñayer object limit, send objects with priority to each different player then just not doing all of that. On top of requiring a third party app to even join with chance of getting vac

[@Saltience]

@@autochaosyt1160that’s not what he’s saying, he’s saying the server would keep a list of 2048 “relevant” objects to send to the clients, that way it doesn’t require a patch on the client end, but still has the ability to go over 2048.

[@nerdycatgamer]

It would be a ton of effort, and the process of ranking the objects and only sending the 2048 most important ones would probably use too much processing power and just make the server run slower (shoenic has said that the server does not have an abundance of cpu cycles)

[@ChaosSwissroIl]

@@nerdycatgamer That's because TF2 itself is a single thread process. Processing server data does not need to be done within TF2 though, only sending out the data 'needs' to be done in TF2. The limitation is in whether or not you can send specific clients specific data.

[@thisdeath]

WAIT THE ASLUME REFRENCE OMGOSH

[@leumasme]

Further patching of the server to hide irrelevant objects from the client (e.g. entities that are guaranteed to be out of view anyway, probably using visleaves which tf2 already uses) would probably be possible. The client probably never needs to actually know of all entities everywhere on the map.

[@Kachopper9]

Oh no the title, you’ve been infected

[@ColonelPanic0]

If they raised the object limit they could probably also re-insert the effects that got removed over time, like the individual syringes in the syringe gun that disappeared to make room for hats.

[@mctoggo]

shounic uploading is always a good day

[@Nananki]

I love these deep dives into TF2, simply excellent videos sir!

[@zesnowpea6347]

The aslume is spreading

[@JohnBread69]

The comments are coping so hard, they want their hats lmao

[@DisplacedSquidify]

I love the quotes you always place at the end

[@nanomachines2954]

I no longer play TF2 but damn I still love watching your videos.. something so entertaining about watching you dissecting every small bit of Source's spaghetti code xD

[@IsaacDaBoatSloth]

if valve fixed it to like say a 10,000 object limit which apparently is where issues arise, then maybe it could work, or a setting in the launch options that allows clients to increase the limit, or clients copy the servers limit

[@henke37]

It has to be a power of two, so 16684 or 8192 entities.

[@nerdycatgamer]

You wouldn't be able to set it in the launch options because this would restrict what servers you're able to connect to (your limit must match the servers), and just taking the server's limit could be an issue because the server would basically be telling your computer to allocate a buffer of whatever size they want, and stupid/malicious server admins could set the entity limit stupidly high and make your computer run out of memory.

[@heliusuniverse7460]

@@henke37 It doesn't have to be a power of 2. It is simply a constant in the code.

[@MentalEdge]

I host Titanfall 2 servers, which also runs on source (though modified). With the Northstar mod, it's possible to past the vanilla player limit of 12, however, going past 16 starts exhibiting some weirdness. Past 18, you have to increase the object limit, and it does work. That's nowhere near 100 players but remember that TF has titans and NPC's and other stuff. Lots of objects. But when playing, it's like the client doesn't get all the data from the server to display everything. Explosions might go off and have an effect, but you won't hear or see the explosion effect client side. Basically, stuff starts to go "missing" in the communication between server and client.

[@bobiddybob2068]

Its official, shounic has escaped the aslume.

[@XionLuis]

they tend to have exponential painful.

[@Naxer2272]

So essentially, get Valve to increase the object limit. They've been doing simple changes from others before, like shown here in this video, so they could do this as well.

[@caramelldansen2204]

Cool! Thanks Shoe!

[@RaceBandit]

The title alone actually reminds me of a time the Beat the Geek _(It was an online Tower Defense game.)_ owner tried to extend its score limit from the 32-bit limit to ... i think the 64-bit limit. It, uh, _broke things._

[@laszlobenedek2710]

is it possible to sort the objects by distance from the player and only send the first 2048? that way the server could be patched without the client's knowledge

[@XxguaxinimxX.]

Great video!

[@samblamjam]

Is shounic from aslume? Am I stupid?

[@professionalshitposter6897]

according to quantum mechanics, you are both stupid and not stupid at the same time

[@gajonoob5122]

​@@professionalshitposter6897schrodinger's aslume

[@squareeyes7386]

4:34 would there be a way for the server to lie to the client about the amount of objects? only listing the closest 2048 (maybe + a priority system) or something to that effect

[@autistukral]

Man it would be nice if Volvo increased the limit to 4096 or 8192 :)

[@meeyatttA]

As you have said, the only thing it would change is allowing hats to be used, but it still would've been nice to have an option regardless

[@ApocalypseMoose]

It turns out that we were the spaghetti code all along.

[@Aelfraed26]

So the reason it's not possible for Valve to simply update the game with a higher object limit is because due to the nature of TF2's spaghetti code a lot of things could break now or down the line and since very few people are working on TF2 it's not feasible?

[@EdisonGarsecondchannel]

Same thing goes to other source engine games like left 4 dead 2. There were some custom maps almost exceeded 2048 limit.

[@yeetboiwhatyesplease2095]

I just realized how little I truly know about programming

[@aaronlink127]

I feel like there *could* be a plugin made that spoofs object info sent per client, such that it never tells any client about more than 2048 objects at once. But, that would, a. be significantly harder to do, and b. might result in weird bugs like objects disappearing (?)

[@8BitShadow]

so basically; you'd have to mod the game engine and not just the game itself. A line that is a very risky road to cross. Mods can be sandboxed (by the engine), mods of the engine itself really can't. Understandable why you wouldn't, had the same conundrum myself but with unity for RoR2. Was working on a specialised and *highly* experimental sudo mod-loader I called "Plug-and-Play" for streamlining the modding process & live modding severs - not intended for public use because I predicted it would be just way to unstable. The mod would allow you to load any mod into the game *at any time even while in-game* so that while developing your mods you can just re-load your mod whenever you make a change to practically instantly test the changes, especially useful if all you're doing is updating some text. -- if you're insteresting in how it works: It still used BepInEx to load mods in for the most part but acted as a 'intermediary'; calling functions that the mods are trying to call and generally hooking things from the mod into unity - not loading in the mod, BepInEx did that, and not hooking directly like BepInEx does but listening for calls and forwarding them instead, so not really a mod-loader per-say but functionally like one. -- *And it worked.* Though I only ever 'hooked' the basic functions unity uses (like Update()) as it was just a proof of concept. The problem? You couldn't *unload* the mod once it was loaded, defeating the entire point of 'load-unload-update-load' testing. The fix was to use something called "domains" for managing loaded DLLs and by all means it *would* work, but the version that RoR2 is on of Unity is literally *1 week too new.* That's right. Unity didn't just disable but outright removed domain loading, trying to use it now will just throw an error that it's "not supported". Trust me I tired to look for a solution but I couldn't find one that wasn't just "re-add it to the engine by having users modify the the engine - re-implementing it". Which would work and by all means it's possible to automate the modification but, just as it would here, that's very dangerous and asking A LOT of the user - even if they're a modder themselves. Just modding the engine is a line I don't think I'll ever cross.

[@userkill2221]

would you be able to selectively display hats to the players with the mod? so that everyone gets what they want?

[@AntonyCannon]

Good vid!

[@user-jr4tn8ix3w]

Will the 46 - bit update help increase the object limit?

[@Loolilol]

Always wondered why!

[@meatystalactite531]

I’m sure absolutely no one is surprised but ficool2’s profile pic (3:31) is from a very popular animation involving two male Beastars characters who explore new ways to show their appreciation for each other. Just if anyone was curious.

[@turnerbytrade6700]

Proof?

[@kitkatchomper69]

i know bruh i was freaking the hell out when i saw that

[@cemint9268]

Glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed LOL

[@minus100iq8]

I mean, he is polish (at least according to his steam profile)

[@SanryoBrosYT]

Maybe with the *64 bits updates, they will upgrade the object limit?

[@zethekobold]

Seeing Ficool2’s profile picture was like a slap to the face

[@YotaXP]

Could the server be modified to only send the 2K objects nearest to each respective player?

[@elihillman8758]

That's actually a good idea

[@Intrafacial86]

*WAIT . . . how do I raise the object limit for a local server???* I have this one old community map I used to enjoy playing, but after an update several years ago it keeps crashing when the payload explodes, citing "Too many edicts."

[@bobbyfisher8]

Honestly this is all I have been playing for the past month. I even got to play with Shounic once and he started messing with the server adding to the chaos 😂

[@notloopers1110]

Its good to know my question wasn't fully stupid, only partially Nice video regardless!

[@wile123456]

It's like the thermometer in littlebigplanet DO NOT HIT THE LIMIT

[@elliot9634]

the train wiggling about is killing me

[@jakovsaric9492]

Would it be possible to have a proximity/priority based system of sending object data? E.g. pipe isn't important for us if it is more than 1000hu away, and therefore server doesn't send it to us

[@AndonutsJeff]

is the title a reference to that post about the people who died in Pompeii

[@5Breaker]

Question:Is the size (amount of data) fixed for every object slot? If not would it be possible to put multiple objects into one slot. And if so maybe via a normal mod. So no patching of the files. Does vScript allow that? Sorry if this is a stupid question... but I thought like using this like a multi dimensional array. Use one for one for mandatory stuff and "compress" the rest for everything else.

[@Deeznootsgotteem]

*Man* would've been proud if he sees this video

[@metalclawsteelheart]

Ok, so what if the server sends limited data? Like how minecraft lets you limit the render and simulation distance. Such as, say, it only sends data of the 2048 closest entities, prioritising things like players and projectiles? How would source handle that?

[@123cooldude500]

Arkham subreddit in the wild!😮

[@BrDown]

correct me if I'm an idiot but what if instead of having people modify their clients, you modify the server a little bit more? in theory you could limit the objects sent to a client to make sure people don't crash like a rendering distance type shit object-hiding or whatever it's called where it isn't loaded if you aren't looking at it I will admit there's flaws in this, esp. wit snipers & stuff, but you get the idea

[@CatQueen1323]

Is there a lore reason why the insanity is here too?

[@thisdeath]

broo like yea i came here for both the aslume and tfe and why are people baely talking about it??

[@ettoresalvatore9437]

I don't know anything about TF2 spaghetti, but would it be possible to raise the object limit slightly on the server-side (say by something like 100 or 500), just so the server wouldn't crash immediately if the limit is reached? That way, even if the limit is broken, clients would crash out, but would be able to re-connect quicker, since the server doesn't have to spin back up?

[@Cat_in_The-Box]

2136, we were one off from greatness

[@WunderWulfe]

it would be cool to see an official tf2 source2 with raised object limits and other optimization features (and laser weapon rebalance)

[@theimperialcombine]

We'll have to wait and see what the 64-bit update brings.

[@Williraser]

5:21 keeping up with updates...what updates?

[@typicwhisper6569]

What about having the server only send a portion of the objects to the clients? Like only visible or important ones. It would be quite the technical marvel to achieve that.

[@LonelySpaceDetective]

re: "only the important objects", that's kind of what the 100-player server is already doing by disabling cosmetics and some unimportant map entities. Like, the main point of raising the object limit is to make it so they don't _have_ to do that. I can't speak for the feasibility of "only visible objects" with certainly, but... I can't see that actually solving anything, since the object list has to be kept track of _globally._ If there's too many objects for the server, it doesn't matter if the object list hasn't been exceeded yet for the players; the server's still crashing anyway.

[@NikolasoGames]

Returning to hatless days. Honestly.. that's kinda great.

[@darknetworld]

object limit with bandwidth to server and client is crazy and I bet it sync objects. I feel your download the big files if those objects can handle process of the data. I guess it was not design for the game that has been fixed and guess it hard to deal with coding and test and it just guess work. Basic it rewrite of the code to allow many entities. I guess there was hardware limit back in the days to prevent crashes.

[@Paycheck777]

The Alsume is here too. We will never leave.

[@purplehaze2358]

Hey, at least you didn't outright get rid of items entirely, which is more than I can say for Valve.

[@zioxidegaming]

lmao not ficool having a frame from backdoor labrador as their pfp

[@MOOMOO22MOO]

In theory, could't you write some kind of translation layer, that only sends 2048 objects to each client, cutting whatever ones are far away from them or otherwise not necessary. While still handling all of the objects on the server side. So the clients don't even know that the object limit is raised. Similar to how something like Geiser allows minecraft bedrock players to connect to java servers by adding a translation layer. The Minecraft bedrock client doesn't even know that it's not a bedrock server. This would of course have a performance cost on the server, that would possibly be quite severe.

[@shinobuoshino5066]

This is one of these rare cases where dynamic memory allocation would completely nullify all of these problems while not affecting existing game whatsoever. It is simple: server tells you what cap is used for current map, one allocation per change of map won't harm performance at all. This requires full engine memory management rewrite to accomodate changing object limit per-map so you can enjoy 2048 object limit on existing maps but raise it client-side to a higher number when connecting to 100 player servers and will never happen.

[@selbi182]

Would it work if Valve added a new server variable that tells the client the entity limit beforehand? And idk, default it to 2048 if isn't set

[@Monkwrestler]

could you play around with the server having 8000 limit but keeping the users pegged at 2000 with the closest ones kept up to date only?

[@someone4229]

Is it possible to just not send the client enough objects to crash? Maybe ignore too far away or generally unimportant objects?

[@Aura_Mancer]

Then the server would be slower having to process the decision making of what to send to specific 100 players according to their viewpoint. It's not viable

[@someone4229]

​@@Aura_MancerTrue. Probably would be slow

[@Relkond]

There was time when I performance number of worker threads available to an older version of JBoss (when it was still called JBoss). Bumping up the thread count let it do more things concurrently, but very quickly tanked performance - 20? Pretty good, long as you didn’t run out. 100? Still ok. 500? Eh, things are working, but the performance hit is measurable. 1000? the hit’s worse, and just past that you’d hit limits on some OSs (some would run out of address space just short of 1024 threads). ‘point being, bigger isn’t always better. Especially when it comes to resource pools.

[@alejandropulidorodriguez9723]

splendid

[@gsk1299]

We're getting out of the Aslume with this one!

[@zerefoex]

H3 ie stuöif

[@iplayminecraft2248]

5:13 "all that including needing to keep up with tf2 updates" I like your funny words magic man

[@ME0WMERE]

How do you have the source of tf2? Is it from the source leak a little while back?