Exact reload times

simple question

Does the reload time include the frame the shot is fired in?

In other words, will a weapon with a reload of 4 fire every 5th frame or every 4th frame?

I'm making a plug (for personal use) and want to be able to calculate weapon damage accurately with fast firing weaponry.

Reload				  The number of frames it takes for one of this weapon to
						  reload. 30 = 1 shot/sec. Smaller numbers yield faster
						  reloads.

That from the Nova Bible

Yes, the reload includes the frame the shot is fired in, unless it has a reload of 0, in which case one shot will be fired per frame.

This post has been edited by LiAnNaSu : 17 June 2006 - 03:03 PM

No, the Reload time is the time it takes a weapon the reload, not counting the one frame it takes to fire. Therefore, a weapon with a Reload of 0 will fire every frame, a weapon with a Reload of 1 will fire every other frame, etc.

There are some issues with some weap fields being in frames, and others being in 30ths of a second, but I'm not sure just which fields those were. Search for a thread titled "BugFest" and it should have that information (in a post by Guy, I think).

Edwards

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't one frame equal to one thirtieth of a second?

Edit: That is to say, I'm aware that framerates aren't constant, depending on how good your computer is, or how slow its running, but wasn't there something else also called "frames" which is guaranteed to run at a rate of thirty frames per second?

This post has been edited by Belthazar : 17 June 2006 - 05:35 PM

@belthazar, on Jun 17 2006, 03:32 PM, said in Exact reload times:

...wasn't there something else also called "frames" which is guaranteed to run at a rate of thirty frames per second?

Yes, but it isn't universally used. Weapon Reload is based on 30ths of a second, but weapon Count is based on actual framerate (see this post).

Edwards

so by lagging your video card out at strategic intervals, it would be possible to change the range of your shots?

When playing Nova, pressing the G key will show you the framerate. On a powerbook G3 500mhz (pismo) I get about 50 FPS just flying around and about 35-40 FPS in battle, depending on how many ships there are and who I am fighting. The fed heavy blasters really take a toll, and a destroyer at close range will bring me down to about 15-20 FPS. Go test it for yourself.

Edit: I play with all the graphics options turned on.

This post has been edited by LiAnNaSu : 17 June 2006 - 09:17 PM

@edwin-, on Jun 17 2006, 08:53 PM, said in Exact reload times:

so by lagging your video card out at strategic intervals, it would be possible to change the range of your shots?

Nova doesn't utilize video cards at all, to my knowledge.

@anaxagoras, on Jun 18 2006, 01:34 PM, said in Exact reload times:

Nova doesn't utilize video cards at all, to my knowledge.

Ooh, clever - it passes straight from my computer's processor to the monitor without passing through the video card (and hence the monitor cable) on the way.

Well, we mean, Nova doesn't leverage the processing power of the video card, as far as we know (contrary to, say, SF4ka).

@belthazar, on Jun 18 2006, 07:17 AM, said in Exact reload times:

Ooh, clever - it passes straight from my computer's processor to the monitor without passing through the video card (and hence the monitor cable) on the way.

Did you do that on purpose, Belthy?

@zacha-pedro, on Jun 18 2006, 09:29 AM, said in Exact reload times:

Well, we mean, Nova doesn't leverage the processing power of the video card, as far as we know (contrary to, say, SF4ka).

If nova did that, It would have framerates that would be way to high to be able to play it. It needs to calculate everything in either framerate or 30ths of a second.

500th post! w00t

This post has been edited by LiAnNaSu : 18 June 2006 - 10:33 AM

@zacha-pedro, on Jun 18 2006, 06:29 AM, said in Exact reload times:

Well, we mean, Nova doesn't leverage the processing power of the video card, as far as we know (contrary to, say, SF4ka).

leveraging it or not, it still needs to use it, so putting strain on it from other sources (say oh, running HL2 at full graphic options in the background) would slow down Nova, both in framerate and in processing time, come to think of it, that's probably a REALLY bad idea, use a less system-intesive game, like Halo.

@edwin-, on Jun 21 2006, 09:04 AM, said in Exact reload times:

leveraging it or not, it still needs to use it, so putting strain on it from other sources (say oh, running HL2 at full graphic options in the background) would slow down Nova, both in framerate and in processing time, come to think of it, that's probably a REALLY bad idea, use a less system-intesive game, like Halo.

Uh, that's pretty irrelevant. Typically, if you're going to have Halo (or other game) open then you'll be playing it until you quit, not suddenly switch out of it and start playing Nova.
Putting strain on the processor however does noticeably affect ranges and other stuff.

If you want to strain your video card, HL2 is not the game to do it with. Far too optimized. Halo, being insanely unoptimized, is a much better choice.

Just a thought.

Unreal Tournament is the standard benchmarking tool. Framerate with all graphic options enabled during a 4-way botmatch.

@lnsu, on Jun 21 2006, 09:52 PM, said in Exact reload times:

Unreal Tournament is the standard benchmarking tool. Framerate with all graphic options enabled during a 4-way botmatch.

Erm...point?

@orcaloverbri9, on Jun 21 2006, 08:43 PM, said in Exact reload times:

Erm...point?

To add a "standard" load to the graphics card?

It doesn't really matter. If you want to kill your framerate, just have something moderately processor-intensive running in the background. iTunes with a current-track-display-widget works unpleasantly well.

For that matter, is there any common program that will put a heavy load on the graphics card without putting a noticable load on the processor? Without a program like that, there's no way to tell if a graphics card load alone slows Nova, and I suspect that Halo and UT don't qualify.

Edwards

@orcaloverbri9, on Jun 21 2006, 05:00 PM, said in Exact reload times:

If you want to strain your video card, HL2 is not the game to do it with. Far too optimized. Halo, being insanely unoptimized, is a much better choice.

Just a thought.

exactly why i switched, HL2 is a ram/processor hog, while Halo is a GPU hog, but leave most other resources alone (i come to this conclusion because with Halo, it doesn't matter what i run the background, it is allways the same ammount of laggy unless i change my graphics ptions, but with HL2, unless i shut down all non-essential programs, i lag, regardless of video settings.)

Log in to reply