| www.ClassicTW.com https://mail.black-squirrel.com/ |
|
| Trouble with Zoc https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12775 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | PHX [ Mon Jun 17, 2002 1:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Many people claim that Zoc/TWX combo is best/fastest. But I find that ZOC tends to get lagged or behind what is really currently happening in the game. Here is a test for someone who might be willing to help me. Proxy TWX, ZOC, and JTWAT all together, perform a repititious cycle like coloing or some trash like that through JTWAT, not ZOC. When JTWAT is all done, is ZOC still cruising along forever? Thats what happens to me. NOW, is this normal or no? I have changed the Emulation in ZOC from ANSI BBS to VT100 and it seems to have helped somewhat, but not completely it still gets lagged just not as much. I can't see how it might be the fact that I am on dialup because JTWAT is still fast as hell and doesn't do that. Maybee its got something to do with the ZOC version? Im using 4.04. heh.....help! Edited by - PHX on June 16 2002 11:41:25 PM |
|
| Author: | Kemper_3 [ Mon Jun 17, 2002 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: Many people claim that Zoc/TWX combo is best/fastest. But I find that ZOC tends to get lagged or behind what is really currently happening in the game. Here is a test for someone who might be willing to help me. Proxy TWX, ZOC, and JTWAT all together, perform a repititious cycle like coloing or some trash like that through JTWAT, not ZOC. When JTWAT is all done, is ZOC still cruising along forever? Thats what happens to me. NOW, is this normal or no? I have changed the Emulation in ZOC from ANSI BBS to VT100 and it seems to have helped somewhat, but not completely it still gets lagged just not as much. I can't see how it might be the fact that I am on dialup because JTWAT is still fast as hell and doesn't do that. Maybee its got something to do with the ZOC version? Im using 4.04. heh.....help! Edited by - PHX on June 16 2002 11:41:25 PM Go to options | session settings | Windows/Colors and set the scroll jumps to flea, frog, or kangaroo. Flea works well on my system, but if you're still having problems, bump it to frog or kangaroo. |
|
| Author: | PHX [ Mon Jun 17, 2002 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok were gettin there, that tip, in combination with the VT100 setting AND ansi colors turned off works. But with colors turned on or any of the other settings not the same it doesnt quite bring it up to speed. What I mean is, with those settings it can keep up with jtwat. Any other suggestions anyone? Thanx Kemper Edited by - PHX on June 17 2002 2:06:40 PM |
|
| Author: | Kemper_3 [ Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: Ok were gettin there, that tip, in combination with the VT100 setting AND ansi colors turned off works. But with colors turned on or any of the other settings not the same it doesnt quite bring it up to speed. What I mean is, with those settings it can keep up with jtwat. Any other suggestions anyone? Thanx Kemper Edited by - PHX on June 17 2002 2:06:40 PM I'm curious what your system specs (processor, vid card (type and memory), and ram) are? Also, what is your operating system and what script at you running that it isn't keeping up with? Edited by - Kemper_3 on June 17 2002 3:25:38 PM |
|
| Author: | PHX [ Tue Jun 18, 2002 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dual P2 400 CPU's ATI Rage Fury Pro 32 590mb DRAM Win98 SE - not making use of the Dual CPU's or memory over 256mb Well Zoc actually has a hard time just keeping up if I ewarp from point A to point B if it is several hops away but your suggestion did fix that part. I generally don't use scripts for heavy workloads like coloing I prefer to use macros because they are so much faster. Even if its a macro that makes 2k trips to terra and back for coloing or whatever the case may be. Scripts are way to slow for this kind of job and this is where Zoc REALLY can't keep up is with my macros. But if JTwat can do it then there must be a way to get ZOC to do it unless the HTML software is just plain faster than whatever ZOC is. I am in the process of switching to XP, I have it set up as a dual boot right now with 98 and XP. As soon as I can get the Netzero software to work correctly with XP ill be using that entirely. I do expect that will help the speed issue with Zoc some more. |
|
| Author: | Kemper_3 [ Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: Dual P2 400 CPU's ATI Rage Fury Pro 32 590mb DRAM Win98 SE - not making use of the Dual CPU's or memory over 256mb Well Zoc actually has a hard time just keeping up if I ewarp from point A to point B if it is several hops away but your suggestion did fix that part. I generally don't use scripts for heavy workloads like coloing I prefer to use macros because they are so much faster. Even if its a macro that makes 2k trips to terra and back for coloing or whatever the case may be. Scripts are way to slow for this kind of job and this is where Zoc REALLY can't keep up is with my macros. But if JTwat can do it then there must be a way to get ZOC to do it unless the HTML software is just plain faster than whatever ZOC is. I am in the process of switching to XP, I have it set up as a dual boot right now with 98 and XP. As soon as I can get the Netzero software to work correctly with XP ill be using that entirely. I do expect that will help the speed issue with Zoc some more. I'm beginning to think win98 just isn't very good with zoc. I run win2k with a k6-2 400 and an 8 meg ati vid card. I really keep up with everything. My wife has a 350 and a better vid card on win 98, and hers seems slow displaying stuff. Once you switch to XP, let me know how your display does. |
|
| Author: | Hale [ Mon Jun 24, 2002 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Don't forget that twx is going to naturally work faster than zoc. When running macros etc... as long as you are safe to do so you can disconnect zoc completely and the twx macro will continue to run on the server just through your twx connection. This way there isn't the extra resource used to show you the text streaming by as you go...(If that makes sense). Another thing... when you are running macros (like colonizing for instance) you will probably want to turn zoc's "logging" feature off for the time being, as that can be an issue in things getting bogged down. Hale Don't sweat petty things... or pet sweaty things. |
|
| Author: | Hale [ Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Erm and to add to that... I use twx, j-twat, and zoc. I have in fact noticed that there is an issue when running scripts while zoc and j-twat are both running. The problem is, though j-twat looks like it's still moving along fine (and suddenly zoc slows almost to a hault), it's actually that something crapped out on j-twat. Close the j-twat application down completely & re-start it. That is the only thing that I have found that fixes the problem. So in answer to your questions (I think), it's not Zoc, it's j-twat. Hale Don't sweat petty things... or pet sweaty things. |
|
| Author: | Rave [ Wed Jun 26, 2002 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: Many people claim that Zoc/TWX combo is best/fastest. But I find that ZOC tends to get lagged or behind what is really currently happening in the game. TeraTermPro and TWX. TTPro is free, is the fastest terminal program I've seen yet. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of ZOC, but then it isn't turtle slow either. TWX is all anyone should ever need for scripting or for macro bursting. A free copy of TWX and a free copy of TTPro and you're good to go, without all the bloat of ZOC. Just my opinion on term/helper combos. Take it or leave it. Lisa M. Cutler aka Rave EIS Product Support |
|
| Author: | bdavey [ Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Be aware TTP and win2k and probably therefore win XP don't really like each other. [In particular ttp scripts will randomly stop and wait for you to _manually_ change focus between the ttp telnet window & the ttp script window and back again. ] TTP was Darn great however under win98, and my impression is that Zoc isn't so crash hot under win98. w.r.t twx- I don't think you can use twx for all scripting- its interpreter is way slow compared to a commerical or shareware telnet's scripting interpreter. Whilst for the most part this doesn't matter too much, you really get punished for this in any scripts that have decent calculations e.g. find nearest fighter; of course, because of its multiplexing-proxy angle, all that means is that you want to attach something to it that can run that kind of script nicely. Cheers, Dr. Bad |
|
| Author: | lewdpotato [ Wed Jun 26, 2002 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just wanted to add that I have had the same problem using swath, zmudd and twx all at the same time, zmudd is the fastest of the 3. once I get mudd set up the way I want I will no longer need swath. not that swath is not a good helper, it is, it's just that z-mudd is ten times faster and if you know what your doing you can customize it to do anything that swath does only alot faster and you can make quick trigger's. Is there anybody else using mudd that would care to share some triggers with me? I will be more than happy to share the one's that I have made. (well most of them anyway). |
|
| Author: | Rave [ Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: Be aware TTP and win2k and probably therefore win XP don't really like each other. [In particular ttp scripts will randomly stop and wait for you to _manually_ change focus between the ttp telnet window & the ttp script window and back again. ] TTP was Darn great however under win98, and my impression is that Zoc isn't so crash hot under win98. I can't comment on TTP's performance under 2K or XP, as I run neither 2K or XP (nor will I at any point in the immediate future). All I know is that under NT, TTP and TWX are rockets. I've never had any complaints about TWX's scripting language or its interpreter. The only promblems I have with TWX as it sits is that I can't make data changes to certain areas of the database... and that's very limiting in my opinion. quote: w.r.t twx- I don't think you can use twx for all scripting- its interpreter is way slow compared to a commerical or shareware telnet's scripting interpreter. Whilst for the most part this doesn't matter too much, you really get punished for this in any scripts that have decent calculations e.g. find nearest fighter; of course, because of its multiplexing-proxy angle, all that means is that you want to attach something to it that can run that kind of script nicely. You just went way over my head with most of this. (I hate admitting that, but what can I do?) I haven't ever run into any situation where a script slows down during calculations, but this may very well be because of the horsepower of the machine I run TWX on. Lisa M. Cutler aka Rave EIS Product Support |
|
| Author: | the reverend [ Thu Jun 27, 2002 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote: I just wanted to add that I have had the same problem using swath, zmudd and twx all at the same time, zmudd is the fastest of the 3. once I get mudd set up the way I want I will no longer need swath. not that swath is not a good helper, it is, it's just that z-mudd is ten times faster and if you know what your doing you can customize it to do anything that swath does only alot faster and you can make quick trigger's. Is there anybody else using mudd that would care to share some triggers with me? I will be more than happy to share the one's that I have made. (well most of them anyway). zMUD? i just found their website and it looks like really great software. does the mapper work in tradewars? how do you set it up to play tradewars - it's so different from most MUDs. regards, the reverend icq 83250263 the.reverend@coastgames.com http://thereverend.coastgames.com/tradewars/ |
|
| Author: | lewdpotato [ Thu Jun 27, 2002 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I will send you and email Rev. |
|
| Author: | Hale [ Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh neat I have Zmud and didn't even think about using it for this purpose. It is a quick little app. Hale Don't sweat petty things... or pet sweaty things. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|