AppOnIdle 2

[zyxstand]

It would be nice to have a second AppOnIdle that would be called every 100ms (or perhaps even have dynamic frequency).  There might be situations in which it could overload the server from being called so much, but it would definitely improve on many scripts.
What do you think?  Worth implementing?

[Norbo]

You can just just place a dummy bot on the map somewhere, then spawn bullets right above him and then you will get a quicker apponidle with onplayerdamage

[zyxstand]

yeah i had thought of that too, but that has a few problems. firstly, it's not reliable. secondly it's map-dependent and would really only work well with custom maps. thirdly, game-play (and hackers too i suppose) could interfere. and lastly, it's not elegant at all from a programmer's pov.

[Norbo]

Well, its not like enesce is going to implement a quicker apponidle any time soon, so your only hope is the dummy im afraid ;\

[croat1gamer]

Current AppOnIdle is 60 ticks, aka 1 second.
But yeh, it would be possible to make wondrous scripts.

When i asked eC bout that he said that the main problem is not implementing it, but making it possible to noob scripters to make scripts which can break the server down, including other servers too.

[zyxstand]

Current AppOnIdle is 60 ticks, aka 1 second.
But yeh, it would be possible to make wondrous scripts.

When i asked eC bout that he said that the main problem is not implementing it, but making it possible to noob scripters to make scripts which can break the server down, including other servers too.

yeah i figured that was the main concern... i can't really see a way around this problem. is there?

[croat1gamer]

Well, i was suggesting for 2 server versions:
1) Normal one, which would read the script, without crashing, but wouldnt use it.
2) Extended one, which would use it.

So, the normal one would be the one used for paid servers and such, while the extended one would be the one which scripters would use for the scripts, so like home hosted servers or even paid servers (which would have e.g. higher price, due to the possibility of breaking the server)

[Falcon`]

threadfunc()....
well, it's well known it's unstable, but it may change in 2.7.0

[Swompie]

Make it a locked feature only available awesome scripters xD
But yeah, eC told us many, many times that he won't be implementing something like that.
Or just a stable Sleep()? I don't know how it works, but I think it should be possible, or not?

[Gizd]

sleep() is stable. Threads aren't(currently).

[Swompie]

Since when? Didn't it cause isues!?

[squiddy]

Sleep() causes massive lag to the server. I never use it.

Although, if it were stable, it would be soooooooooooo much easier and less-boring to make little coutdowns

[Gizd]

Sleep() causes massive lag to the server. I never use it.

Although, if it were stable, it would be soooooooooooo much easier and less-boring to make little coutdowns

It IS stable. Lag is because of running it in the main server's thread.

[DorkeyDear]

Sleep does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is have the current thread sleep for a specified amount of time. When this is in the main thread, then of course your server will hold up for that amount of time. It is not that sleep is unstable, its that threads aren't. (Exactly what Gizd said)

[Swompie]

Sleep does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is have the current thread sleep for a specified amount of time. When this is in the main thread, then of course your server will hold up for that amount of time. It is not that sleep is unstable, its that threads aren't. (Exactly what Gizd said)

That's what I wanted to hear.