Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Lastly, note that it's unreasonable to expect mods to perform under some arbitrary limit all the time. If you used a lot of things from GlitterNet then it may well take over 5ms on average to compute some ticks because ultimately there's a minimum set of code that GlitterNet needs to execute to actually work. I've done pretty much everything I could to pare that minimum set to the true minimum, but at some point the only thing I can do to make it perform better is to start to make it not work.
First of all, when you say you saw a 5ms "response", are you talking about average or max time? If it's max, then what you recorded is most likely a garbage collector cycle occurring during a GlitterNet function. if it's average, then there's a problem and I'll need at the very least a screenshot of the analyzer showing what method is acting up and a description of the scenario under which the performance issue occurred.