I ran it yesterday on linux with latest FAF game files.

Just yesterday there was a post about a whole engine replacement built with rust, have a look around

Impressive, curious for more!

More curious about simulation and netcode
Still interesting.

Does it happen on steam version of the game?
Rename your game.prefs file to e.g. game.backup and try again the FAF version.

If UTC isn't clear enough (perhaps the most universal human readable time indication) then we can always use unix timestamps so everyone has the same second all the time: 1773759478

Also some previous discussions:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/3801/rating-degradation
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5596/proposal-degradation-of-rating-over-time/
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2767/rating-sigma-should-increase-over-time/

Isn't it fun to discover all the debugging done was basically needless, as the client wasn't even designed to get you the game files via offline mode.

Oh wait, you've been trying to offline play this whole time. Perhaps the client doesn't even trigger the "check files for update needs" thing that way

Folder permissions have stumped me and other before, even when you tried to manually fix them. Try to fiddle further with those.
e.g. some individual steps that can be tried:

• Remove C:\ProgramData\FAForever, let it get created again
• Create FAForever\bin yourself
• Run client as administrator (normally one shouldn't, but eh)
• Try the py client: https://github.com/FAForever/client

Change the value in game.prefs file.

@magge said in supreme commander forged alliance game not utilizing gpu.:

@Giebmasse You mean this "Minimum frametime" setting, right?

I played around with it, and noticed/saw/felt no difference with 240 FPS on a 240 HZ monitor. Perhaps when FPS are much lower it will be noticeable, but was too lazy to test that.

Yup that, it was quite choppy for me on the default 16 / 60 fps setting, seemingly same for OP.

There is also the somewhat new fps limit settings in the in-game settings, worth turning that up, defaults to 60 fps which can show off as laggy behavior.
Other than that usually some bad mod or driver/overlay issue then next in turn.

https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/197078254681587712/1413952423827079249

I think this thread has run its course, or rather derailed.

With smaller amount of players the other solutions could've utilized a peer-server-peer type of communication, with the scale of FAF this is not possible without huge expenses/other reworks, so a more demanding solution is required. It isn't always so black and white.

@Skrat said in New account in FAF:

@Giebmasse Im agree with Nuggets. Im not sure why faf privacy is being quoted here. Nobody is asking for personal information.

User requests account deletion as per GDPR and our privacy policy.
Account is deleted.
You are then later asking for moderators to restore erased account data and make it public with some kind of announcement.

https://faforever.com/privacy

May I then correct your memory if you wish to bring it back up and by doing so also claim incorrect things.

Initial:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7653/username-rules-updates?page=1

After feedback:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7653/username-rules-updates/201?page=11

@Tersto said in Change the handling of Reports - When is a report valid?:

@Giebmasse said in Change the handling of Reports - When is a report valid?:

We even ask that only players participating in the game generally should report events from games. Big part of the responsibility of "is this reporteable" is up to the participating players who are most closely affected by potential events. The moderation team does not crawl through replays for fun, we have plenty to do otherwise already. Circumstances where a non-participant report of a ctrl-k event in a game would have to be something special for us not to just discard it.

The fact that FAF doesn't have a big playerbase means, that high rated players constantly play against or with the same players. If someone really wants to get another player banned, I'm sure he could search through enough replays to eventually find a reportable offence for almost everyone that happened a long time ago. This can be abused to get people banned before or in tournaments so you don't have to play against them or also just if you don't like them.
Therefore I suggest a timelimit of how old a reported "offence" is allowed to be. Maybe 1-2 month? Serious offences like cheating should be excluded, however I don't see an issue to apply this timelimit to most other FAF rules e.g. base ctrl k, griefing, exploits...
Because if it really was an issue, that was affecting someone in a negative way, then it would have been reported in a timely manner.

I'll be direct, this is not really a problem, we don't need to be chasing ghosts.
Sure, theoretically if you stretch the scenarios as far as possible and assume reports are processed blindfolded or completely isolated from any other data points we take into account when processing reports.

We've had people thrawling through reports just trying to cause problems for another user, this is easily spotted and dealt with accordingly.

Basically in any case if a report is not made by a game participant and in a timely manner, faint warning bells are ringing in the background when checking the report for its validity and if the reporter had any malicious intent.