You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently parse rate sets the fraction of recorded frames that makes it into the json.
A parse rate of 1 means every single frame makes it into the json while 128 means every 128th frame makes it in.
This has the disadvantage that it leads to fluctuating frames per second depending on the demo tickrate. If one parses demos from different sources some demos will have 1 frame per second while other would only have one frame every 4 or so seconds.
We could change (or offer an alternative) the logic the specify the (maximum) number of frames per second instead.
That way one could specify 1 frame per second and would always get a consistent value (as long as the demo permits).
Setting values of more frames per second than what was recorded in the demo would emit a warning and instead just record every single frame instead as a best effort.
What are your thoughts on this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently parse rate sets the fraction of recorded frames that makes it into the json.
A parse rate of 1 means every single frame makes it into the json while 128 means every 128th frame makes it in.
This has the disadvantage that it leads to fluctuating frames per second depending on the demo tickrate. If one parses demos from different sources some demos will have 1 frame per second while other would only have one frame every 4 or so seconds.
We could change (or offer an alternative) the logic the specify the (maximum) number of frames per second instead.
That way one could specify 1 frame per second and would always get a consistent value (as long as the demo permits).
Setting values of more frames per second than what was recorded in the demo would emit a warning and instead just record every single frame instead as a best effort.
What are your thoughts on this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: