I’m not sure your information wrt Call Of Duty is correct.
To my knowledge, the client timestamps their inputs and sends them to the server; the server will then rewind the state of the world to the time of the input before applying it. RTT isn’t an input. Each snapshot from the server includes the server world timestamp of that snapshot; the client will gently lerp its clock to match this per frame.
Source - I’m a COD engine developer the last ~15 years or so.
Oh, I remember you from T5 debug messages. You are most certainly more knowledgable about this topic than me.
My info might be outdated, but I've noticed that on asyncronous routes, there seems to be a large bias that's based on on assuming upstream latency == downstream latency. It might just be the clock not getting adjusted (even most NTP imlementations make this assumption), but it also has been since ~T7 that I even checked. Conditioning the network to add ~40ms to downstream latency could actually reproduce this behavior.
People don't really realize how hard of a problem sub-10ms clock sync can be on cursed networks.
When I worked at IBM circa ~2006 you'd get a written warning called a clean desk violation if you left your workstation unlocked.
I wrote a little daemon that'd l2ping my Nokia brick phone; if it didn't get a response for 30 seconds it'd invoke xscreensaver. Saved me a lot of paperwork.
I currently work at a Call of Duty studio. My favorite hacks ( not super high tech, but the ones that had the most impact for the least code, and the ones I feel I can talk about.. ):
* Put together a little box that polls varied knobs on a USB midi device to mangle the traffic going across its two interfaces. Allows for real time latency / jitter / packet loss testing https://twitter.com/ultrahax/status/1200902654882242562
* Studio LAN game browser didn't work across subnet boundaries ( studio is a couple of class B's ). Wrote a little daemon that'd take game discovery packets from one subnet, mangle the src addr, and send it on its merry way. Everyone can see everyone's games, happy producers.
I've seen this first hand, across datacenter providers. The most common one is some sort of power supply failure that causes the CPUs to under-volt and throttle; the machine won't go down entirely, the clock will just go through the floor. It's common enough we set up alerting to watch for it specifically.
Been at current company for 15 years, from software engineer through to principal engineer. I don't see myself leaving. The work is for the most part interesting, the money is pretty decent, and the people I work with are broadly aligned on the same goals and culture.
Yeah, any time I'm engaged in deep thought, including coding, I just... look angry. I've had to explain to people at work that that's just how my face is when I'm working.
End of page allocation has been a real life-saver. I have it rigged up to the core allocators of the game engine I work with, so you can switch it with a cmdline switch; if you suspect an overwrite, you switch on the EOP allocator ( using more memory temporarily ), and bang, you get a segfault where you went off the end / used-after-free.
Most engines I've seen will delta all the entity states against the client's last acknowledged state. Costs some memory and computation on both sides to keep the deltas valid, but keeps the state update to under an MTU, generally.
I can't stand the tone of this video, so couldn't watch the whole thing but skipped through, and afaict it's debunking the idea that people ever really did this in battle? Not that the stunts in the video are fake?
Kind of a misleading thing to say it's 'thoroughly debunked' when it's very clearly for entertainment and just says they're 'myths'.
I agree, after watching both videos it seems plausible that at least some historical warriors could have used a style like Lars and been very effective with it. I don’t think that claim is really “debunked”.
They seem to have attacked the least charitable interpretation of his video. For example, I don’t think he was seriously claiming that warriors would routinely catch opponent’s arrows and fire them back in combat, I thought he was just presenting that as a cool trick.
Your correct. Lars isn’t faking his feats. But his narrative that he “rediscovered the ancient true way of archery” is fake, and originally before his rise to fame, that was his “claim to fame” he was a snake oil salesman who ended up being successful because even though his claims about the product where false, people still genuinely liked the product just for what it was, impressive archery skills, no need to wrap it up in claims about ancient lore or some modern conspiracy to “suppress true archery”.
If you are selling A as A-prime, you can be a snake-oil salesman even if you are supremely skilled at A.
In Lars' case, he is from what I can see a supremely skilled instinctive archer. There are some historical documentation, from some regions ,documenting feats that Lars is capable of doing.
But, "feating" and "combat skills" are very different things (well, they are for sword disciplines, I will blithely assert the same is true in archery). Yes, both require skill. Yes, training one discipline can improve the other. but they're not the same. Just like how writing Haskell (or Lisp) can make you a better C programmer.
> If you’re actually good I don’t think you can be called a snake oil salesman exactly.
Of cause you can. Every single social media body builder who’s obviously on Steroids but is claiming they got to they are by eating whatever the latest marketable product they come across(see referral link in bio) is, are snake oil salesmen’s, even if they are objectively and impossible as muscular as their viewers want to be.
Lars got really good at archery doing what every other archer does… the big dumb secret you ask? He practiced. But it’s difficult to sell pratice, even expensive one on one tutoring only gets you so far. So he invented a narrative where “Big Archery” has been conspirering since the Dark Ages to teach archery wrong, but if you follow his cult of the true archery (click link for details on the subscription pricing), then you too will instantly become an archer supreme, capable of firing several arrows through keyholes!
Given the amount of effort he spends to find what actual ancient texts, ancient pictures, and reproducing exactly that, I think he has a pretty good claim to be trying to reproduce actual specific historical styles.
In later videos he talks about not just historical archery, but specific styles used by specific people with references.
That’s not how the sciences work. Historians don’t invent a narrative and then go through ancient texts trying to find pictures and snippets they can use to back up their narrative. You start from the source, study it and try to deduce the truth, and you can try to craft a narrative that portrays that truth as accurately as possible.
> In later videos he talks about not just historical archery, but specific styles
Yes he talks a lot about it and everything he makes up gets quickly and thoroughly debunked. He might as well be claiming that aliens invented archery. He’s a fraud who’s good with a acrobatic trick shots with bow and arrow, not a historian.
I've seen his version, and I've the attempts to debunk. I've also seen his attempts to debunk the debunkers, and so on
I am emphatically not convinced by the attempts to debunk.
Furthermore there is a situation where Lars clearly did start with a source, and attempted to reproduce exactly that. In other words he did what you say he didn't. Does he know what the thing he found is the way it was actually done? He doesn't, and says so. But it is one way it could have been done, and reproduces the historical feats of archery.
It started when a group of Native Americans pointed out in https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/videos-lost-and-found... that they have maintained an archery tradition that Lars had ignored. However after Lars talked with actual Comanches, he found that they had lost the technique by which the Comanches fired so quickly. A technique which, according to both pictures and books, was completely different than the style that Lars had figured out based on Arab and Asian sources. They could still make and shoot the bows an arrows, but not at the speed described in history books.
And so, working with a Comanche archer and with authentic Comanche bows and arrows, Lars experimented until to find a method that fit the historical record. He was able to achieve historical speed and accuracy with a very different technique than he used before. Yes, he did it from from horseback, and whoed it could be done while hanging off of horseback. (He doesn't appear to be good enough to actually do it at speed while hanging off an actual horse, but that is a question of horsemanship, not of archery.)
If you're a glutton for punishment, he explains himself at length in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mqt69VZ28. And you get to see what he thinks he got right, what he thinks he got wrong, and the limits of what he claims to know.
The most interesting point for me is that practice with shooting moving things interferes with shooting at a stationary target, and vice versa. This "two related things interfere with each other in your brain" is something I've personally experienced with Go vs Chess. But it is fascinating that it happens with archery.
Superficially impressive? Those archery trick shots were amazing! Obviously nobody was doing 360 no-scopes with arrows in the Battle of Crécy, I didn't take that as the thesis statement of the 'debunked' video.
I don't trust any youtube video that claims to be a source of information but hides comments or likes/dislikes, it's a strong signal that the video's ideas don't hold up to even the most surface level scrutiny.
I think you're getting downvoted for the use of the word superficially (what he does and is impressive and the video you linked doesn't debunk the trick shooting itself except for the split arrow), but this is an important contribution. His historical claims struck me as off, and this video does a good job of explaining why.
"How did the Saracens measure seconds?" — My thought exactly!
I think the claim is that surviving texts about training archers describe shooting an area is a certain distance and loosing two more before the first hits the ground (with some extra requirement that the first not be aimed at some high angle). You can then go back from the kinds of bows they had and turn that into an estimate.
To my knowledge, the client timestamps their inputs and sends them to the server; the server will then rewind the state of the world to the time of the input before applying it. RTT isn’t an input. Each snapshot from the server includes the server world timestamp of that snapshot; the client will gently lerp its clock to match this per frame.
Source - I’m a COD engine developer the last ~15 years or so.