Search / View

[sparcdr]

Fixed and I'll maintain symlinks so you don't have to figure out what's current for each platform.

http://www.smokin-guns.org/downloads/binaries/current/

[Allied]

I'm having audio problems with this new build. All sounds are chopped up and stuttery. I also noticed that it's using SDL for audio, how does this affect OpenAL and/or surround?

[sparcdr]

Shouldn't be using SDL itself for sound, rather OpenAL... it should improve sound, but some sound cards have issues. What kind of sound card do you have?

[Allied]

Shouldn't be using SDL itself for sound, rather OpenAL... it should improve sound, but some sound cards have issues. What kind of sound card do you have?

Well in the place in the console where it used to give the information that said it was using OpenAL, etc it now says this:

Code: Select all

------ Initializing Sound ------
SDL_Init( SDL_INIT_AUDIO )... OK
SDL audio driver is "waveout".
SDL_AudioSpec:
  Format:   AUDIO_S16LSB
  Freq:     22050
  Samples:  5512
  Channels: 2
Starting SDL audio callback...
SDL audio initialized.
----- Sound Info -----
    1 stereo
131072 samples
   16 samplebits
    1 submission_chunk
22050 speed
04011FD0 dma buffer
No background file.
----------------------
Sound initialization successful.
--------------------------------
Sound memory manager started

I'm using a Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeAudio. Yes, I upgraded from my integrated and surround works in Vista now .

[sparcdr]

Try my latest binary from the same URL above, the date will be different, or use r220.

Okay, so the latest build triggered it to use SDL? Odd.. try replacing the q3config.cfg and default.cfg with the original and make modifcations after first launch and see if it resets, and add:

Code: Select all

seta s_UseOpenAL "1"

if it doesn't exist in either.

[Allied]

That latest binary fixed it, didn't need to change config at all. Nice work, I love the ability to minimize now . Thanks!

[Ugly]

I've made a concerted effort to try out more weapons against both people and bots over the last week or so.

I'd say that both the colt lightning and the Winchester 1866 (rifle) are over-priced.

I have found a new respect for the Winchester 1897 shotgun though. I've overlooked it for ages as it wasn't as powerful as either of the other two shotguns but last night I used it to great effect in Cobber Canyon and elsewhere and found it to be fantastically handy.

If we're not allowed to mess with the stats of the weapons to maintain the work the team did on making the weapons historically accurate then I guess the only thing we have to play with is price. I'd go with the previous suggestion of dropping the Winchester 1866 into the price bracket of the starting money as an alternative to the schofield. I'd drop the price of the colt lightning too.

Someone mentioned giving a price break for the sharps/sight combination, all I have to say on this is nooooooooooooooooooooo. I hate the darned thing, hidden snipers make for a very boring game and this would only mean more of them.

[moRtem]

what about adding serverside cvars and leave the price-choice up to the serveradmins?

usually this will allow some developement and after some trial and error there'll be a 'favourite setting' which will be used on the majority of the servers


/quit

[mLy!]

what about adding serverside cvars and leave the price-choice up to the serveradmins?

usually this will allow some developement and after some trial and error there'll be a 'favourite setting' which will be used on the majority of the servers


/quit

200% agreed

[Lucky Bro]

Agree on 50%

My idea is to create these CVar modifications. But only for short testing stage. For a few weeks. And for a few well-known servers. After the stage is done -> these Cvars must be deleted.

I don't want to check each time I connect to server - is admin of the server has changed something to prices?
But I agree that prices could be modified. At least we may try other values for short time.

[ReD NeCKersoN]

If we're not allowed to mess with the stats of the weapons to maintain the work the team did on making the weapons historically accurate then I guess the only thing we have to play with is price.

Where is that written in stone? As someone who shoots rifles from time to time, I'm not so sure the accuracy stats are as historically correct as previously thought.

[DeUgli]

As someone who shoots rifles from time to time, I'm not so sure the accuracy stats are as historically correct as previously thought.

Would you care to expand on that, Red? More or less accurate? I'm just curious.

[ReD NeCKersoN]

Let me do some testing before I stick my foot in my mouth.

[Bodie]

Maybe rifles should be... less accurate? Maybe bigger spread would allow you to hit opponent even if you don't have your rifle pointed exactly at him?

I believe that would allow for some uncertainty when shooting and to score hits even without perfect aiming.

Now if you aim even half a pixel from enemy's hitbox, you have 100% miss since rifle is so damn accurate. With bigger spread you'd have 50% chance the bullet will wander towards enemy and actually hit him although your aim wasn't perfect... That would actually increase accuracy instead of lowering it.

What do you think?

[Redwing]

Maybe rifles should be... less accurate? Maybe bigger spread would allow you to hit opponent even if you don't have your rifle pointed exactly at him?

I believe that would allow for some uncertainty when shooting and to score hits even without perfect aiming.

Now if you aim even half a pixel from enemy's hitbox, you have 100% miss since rifle is so damn accurate. With bigger spread you'd have 50% chance the bullet will wander towards enemy and actually hit him although your aim wasn't perfect... That would actually increase accuracy instead of lowering it.

What do you think?

I think people who are good at aiming would object. But incidentally, that is why I use pistols instead of rifles. They counteract my terrible aim.