r_worldlights 0 might help you

all of this speculation is completely pointless, if valve fucks us over we can deal with that when it happens.

just remember 2 years ago a lot of people were literally willing to completely change how 6v6 is played just so there would be an option for 6v6 when you queue up.

we fucking made it boys

As we get closer to matchmaking I'd expect to see more and more customization getting axed (no hats mod, HUDs, range of cvars being more limited). Valve have the philosophy of having a level playing field for anyone, i.e. you don't have to mod/fuck with your game in order to be a good player (see: cs). That said, I expect there to be an updated ui/hud and a big performance update.

Screw dxlevel and all that crap. I want MAP FILTERS FOR QUICKPLAY. lol

There basically is if you choose to choose the server you join.

wtf?
actually typing in the search to find the map I want to play, absurd
fuck it I want one button for everything!

inb4 they make r_drawviewmodel a cheat command in order to see skins

I would imagine map filtering to let the the user create a list of maps that should not be considered by the gamecoordinator. And the point of having a map filter in Quickplay is because the serverbrowser is slow as hell (atleast for me) and most of the time doesnt even display official servers.

put "valve" in search tags if you want to find valve servers btw

What a cocktease

Dx9 Frames and stuff help if u still want that 299 fps feel... https://chrisdown.name/tf2/

itd probably be a bad move since festives and unusual weapons would immediately plummet in value and they dont wanna cut out steam market dollars on two of the most expensive things they sell

they should make fov_desired 90 and cl_interp 0.015 default values first

I am pretty sure Valve knows what they are doing, because if Valve fucks up, tf2 will be fucked by Overwatch.
Hell, if there was no Overwatch, we probs wont be having comp matchmaking. Remember that leaders of tf2 dev team stated that tf2 was not meant for competitive play

you are greatly overestimating the cross-section of players that buys expensive weapons and turns viewmodels off

The first leaks of competitive matchmaking were before Overwatch was announced at BlizzCon last year, so they probably weren't influenced by Overwatch when deciding to do it.

DOTA has HUDs people can pay for on the workshop, last I checked. I don't think TF2's community would handle a similar concept, at the very least because we're used to free open-sourced HUDs, but also because I'm definitely certain that DOTA's HUD customization was designed to be far less fragile by comparison

if valve is smart:

-take out the exploits that cause stuff like transparent viewmodels (since those can be provably used for wallhacks)
-add a command to change viewmodel opacity (or just set it in r_drawviewmodel, so "r_drawviewmodel 0.5" would be 50% alpha)
-create an official open-source repository for all the HUD shit, so then they can just say "welp, it's up to you now"

view model opacity could also be an ez workaround to valve's business-POV of "we need viewmodels to sell skins", since a 10% opacity that you can pretty easily see through would still show off your fancy skin

(I'd also want a crosshair customization system built-in that basically boils down to "import an iconfont and move it where you want", making stuff like knuckles' crosshairs 100% compatible + standard, but I doubt that'll ever happen)

pretty much all serious players turn them off eventually

like a fair amount of comp players have festives or aussies soooo

I'm still waiting for HUDs to be added to the Steam workshop. And to be able to select which one to use in-game.

do you mean select them from a menu to change ingame?
i dont think this would work because hud_reloadscheme only does so much and you need to restart your game to fully change huds

would this be something that they can change with a rework of the hud system that's inevitably coming with the stream list integration?

This is the one thing I would flip out over, and it would actually be worth it to flip out over.

Newsflash: I started off with TF2 (and PC gaming beyond little Flash games in general) on an old AMD Athlon system from around 2006-2007. I didn't bother with DirectX 8 even though I had a painful 10 FPS. Yes, 10. 20 or so at best, but usually 10-15. I could have used DirectX 8, but I didn't because I knew that Valve could have killed it off at any point either partially (like now) or completely.

After I decided to be a jackass and try putting Windows 7 on that same desktop, the motherboard gave up the ghost. I had to resort to playing on a laptop intermittently with some 4000 series AMD integrated GPU. I had most settings at high or a few steps short of high, and it was perfectly playable. There was also another laptop that I could have used (it has some Intel Centrino), but didn't because I didn't even want to chance getting the same stuff again.

Then, I built my current desktop, and 3 years later, I'm still happily chugging along at ease with everything at maximum on DX9. The only sorts of "trouble" I've had at all with a 3570K and a 660 Ti is only just recently with Just Cause 3, but even then it's "playable" (less so than that AMD laptop in terms of estimated frames, for reference). 30 FPS "playable", maybe not the "pleasant" of 60 FPS+, but still perfectly playable with most things high or a step or two away from it.

If you lot are having problems, maybe it might be some power-saving hippie shit that's on by default or something? Check your motherboards and Windows power settings too, make sure your mobo's on at least "normal" and Windows is on high performance.

I think you just have a different definition of playable to most people here. When you're playing competitive any small stutters are a problem, and you want constant 200+ fps. It's simply not good enough to have 60+fps max.

Does FPS above your monitor's refresh rate actually make any difference? I'm getting like 200-300 FPS on MGE for example, but when it drops to around 150-160 in other game modes it still feels the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0

i like to run 300fps on my 60hz because placebo is a bitch :)

I've seen this video before. So according to him there could be a delay between PC rendering a frame and the monitor's refresh from 0 to 7 milliseconds (if you are playing at 144 FPS with a 144 Hz monitor). Playing at 300 FPS would lower it to like 3 milliseconds, but would it make any real difference?

On soldier I'm always rocket jumping around. Quick flick required for jumping makes my fps to unstable, because I need to look at ground for rocket jump which makes my fps to rise from normal. Turning around after that to look forwards while on mid air lowers my fps back to normal again. TF2 is prone to have input lag spikes when fps changes too much.
Because of this I'm running dx8 with fps configs to get rid of fps fluctuations.

4ms??

yes. There's like three basic components. 1) monitor refresh rate itself, 2) game refresh rate pushing new frames closer to when the monitor picks them up (screen tearing is an additional component of this and reduces the effects of the fact that cables and panels aren't instant), 3) uncapped game refresh rate being the limit on the time it takes to go from input to finishing rendering (multicore rendering probably doesn't affect this)

the effects of 1 and 2 boil down to half of each respective frametime in practice -- there's room for fluctuation from 0ms to the full frametime.

for 300fps with uncapped fps on a 144hz display you'd be looking at a floor of average input latency of ~9ms, but this would be increased by pixel color change speed, peripheral latency, driver problems, triple buffering, or the monitor doing things like buffering the frame, among other problems