Bases via Database or Mission.sqm

A

Aaron J

Member
I was wonder which of these would be the preferred method? I have done both and was wondering whats best. Also if you add them in through the database does that still effect the fgetvehcount?
 
I like using the database method. I've had no issues. This method uses the 2d editor and your deployable table. Just need to remember not to delete your buildings when cleaning up tents or wire fence. I backed up my table after adding all the buildings. Here is a helpful tut. on using the deployable table.

(I'm sure alot of people use other methods, I just like doing it this way)
 
Whenever I've used the DB method my buildings shift and some of the places made are rather elaborate and don't allow for any wiggle room.. so i've done it through the sqm until I learn a) the impact on server performance b) how to prevent shifting
 
This is because sometimes the DB doesn't pick up coordinates correctly I believe.

I'm still curious, which method affects server performance more?
 
Manatee Hunter said:
Whenever I've used the DB method my buildings shift and some of the places made are rather elaborate and don't allow for any wiggle room.. so i've done it through the sqm until I learn a) the impact on server performance b) how to prevent shifting
Click to expand...

I've learned to deal with object placement being off I run a Tavi server and I heard placement can be 1 meter off on objects. I would also like to know which one is better for server performance and mainly does the DB method effect the fgetvehcount?
 
I would strongly advise you to go with the mission method. First of all, if you are doing it via the database - the object placement is incorrect most of the time, as well as the more objects - the more it will take to receive data when joining your server.

Mission method is a lot easier, a lot more convenient. You can always just load up the mission and edit whatever, whereas it won't be as easy with the database method.

So server performance - mission.
 
MrB said:
I would strongly advise you to go with the mission method. First of all, if you are doing it via the database - the object placement is incorrect most of the time, as well as the more objects - the more it will take to receive data when joining your server.

Mission method is a lot easier, a lot more convenient. You can always just load up the mission and edit whatever, whereas it won't be as easy with the database method.

So server performance - mission.
Click to expand...

so the buildings in the database cause issues with loading into the server or longer load times?
 
All you are doing when you add things to the mission is increasing the file size the client has to download.

I've always used the database method and have never had an issue. There is no extra "Loading" time doing it this way. The only time it may impact that would be when the server is first starting and the DB is calling and spawning the buildings/vehicles.
 
cen said:
All you are doing when you add things to the mission is increasing the file size the client has to download.

I've always used the database method and have never had an issue. There is no extra "Loading" time doing it this way. The only time it may impact that would be when the server is first starting and the DB is calling and spawning the buildings/vehicles.
Click to expand...

thanks for clearing that up. I would hate to put all the buildings i have in the mission file. It would be a forever long download just to join the server.
 
Machine roughly how many objects have you added?

Also lets say I eventually add 2000 objects into the map, won't this effect the fgetVehCount?
 
cen said:
All you are doing when you add things to the mission is increasing the file size the client has to download.

I've always used the database method and have never had an issue. There is no extra "Loading" time doing it this way. The only time it may impact that would be when the server is first starting and the DB is calling and spawning the buildings/vehicles.
Click to expand...

Like I've said, using the database to add buildings is not the best way:

1. The object positions aren't correct
2. It takes longer to receive data when joining/respawning

Mission file being bigger by 20kb is going to have a lot less of an impact than it would adding them through the database.
 
I have had no issues using DB, a few small inaccuracies in object placement, but usually if I find one, I can just wipe the database of buildings, make a small change in 3D editor, and VIOLA its fixed. Putting 1000 buildings into your mission.sqm WILL MAKE IT HUGE. I have an extra 450 buildings on my server, the amount of performance decrease is unnoticed. I have several areas that are built quite tight. For example, Devils castle is my admin base. I repaired the castle walls all around it and it worked great. Can hardly tell the walls were missing in the first place.

I have several buildings around on my server that are small garages, and have created vehicle spawns inside them, it works perfect every time.

http://dayz.wofjwof.com/map.php

Use that, it works perfect, and theres a guide on how to do it on the site too.

Edit: Obviously only works on Bliss DB servers.
 
I'm just speaking from my own experience, but then I don't remember when I tried it. Must've been back when it was first added as a feature, it might've been improved since then, but I doubt it.

If it works great for you then that's good. For me, mission file is where its at ;)

I don't add random buildings on the side of the road, or don't make ridiculous "admin bases". I have a couple of new army bases, and when adding them in to the database, the placement was always off. That's when I tried to do it in the mission, and haven't looked back. :)

So to answer the question, now that others have shared their experience - if you are going to just make some army bases then go ahead and use the mission file. If you're going to add random clutter around the map, go ahead and use the database so the clients don't have to download a 1MB mission file.
 
Now I may be wrong but... wouldn't the client have to download the information to see those new buildings anyway? If he doesn't download the info with the mission file then he downloads it when he's loading into the server. Or doesn't he?
 
What about this... when the buildings load from the database they only load in once at start and are there till restart. So the initial impact after restart is pretty heavy. However once loaded they do not have to be added again. So... over all... these methods are basically the same. Unless you delete your client side mission file before rejoin. That make any sense or am I completely wrong?
 
Not entirely sure Machine. If I understand the way it works correctly, every client who logs in receives information from the database, meaning, the database will have to send the information about the "non-cooked" (not present on the "vanilla" version of the map) buildings every time he relogs to the server because that information is not downloaded as a permanent file but as a caché, meaning that when he logs out, there's no record of those buildings existing anymore.

This is the opposite to how the mission or script method works. When you put the buildings through the mission file or you add them as a script (like I do), the client downloads the mission.pbo when entering the server only once (per time you change it that is). All the custom buildings or additions are there, so what's left for the client is to run the scripts on his own computer so he sees the "non-cooked" material.

When it comes to performance, I believe that editing the mission is not only an easier and more customizable method than database additions, but also a much softer performance hit.

EDIT

Also, when it comes to in-depth customization, like adding buildings with certain atributes (disabled simulation, vector fixes, damaged,etc.) the database is left behind since I doubt it even allows such things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top