.:: Bots United ::. - View Single Post

Austin · **Re: Podbot Beta 3.0 Updates? ^^ -** 14-09-2006

KWo,

This bot is awesome!
I just tried 19 bots as ts and 13 bots as cts and myself on the server.
I run a true DS on a AMD athlon 3000+
The cpu runs just over 20% when there is full out warfare going on!
It idles around 2% cpu when there isn't any action going on, even with 31 bots!

The nade throwing is a bit "high" I did notice.
The bot seems to be pointing the nade at the target correctly but their release is too high most of the time.
(I was using version 2006.9.3.0. Going to switch over to testing on a dllbuilt from podbot_mm_src_v3B15.zip and mm 1.19 source.)

I will write this up in the bug section as well as some features I need (and am willing to try coding or what ever help you want/ need.)

I am confused on how you keep track of the version.
In the forums you mention versions like V3 beta 14f
But when I look at the dll version resource I see version info like 20060910.
Why not put the "real" version into the dll to avoid confusion?

Thanks man!

	(#52)
Austin Moderator Status: Offline Posts: 403 Join Date: Nov 2003	Re: Podbot Beta 3.0 Updates? ^^ - 14-09-2006 KWo, This bot is awesome! I just tried 19 bots as ts and 13 bots as cts and myself on the server. I run a true DS on a AMD athlon 3000+ The cpu runs just over 20% when there is full out warfare going on! It idles around 2% cpu when there isn't any action going on, even with 31 bots! The nade throwing is a bit "high" I did notice. The bot seems to be pointing the nade at the target correctly but their release is too high most of the time. (I was using version 2006.9.3.0. Going to switch over to testing on a dllbuilt from podbot_mm_src_v3B15.zip and mm 1.19 source.) I will write this up in the bug section as well as some features I need (and am willing to try coding or what ever help you want/ need.) I am confused on how you keep track of the version. In the forums you mention versions like V3 beta 14f But when I look at the dll version resource I see version info like 20060910. Why not put the "real" version into the dll to avoid confusion? Thanks man!