    > Does it cause pop-in when peeking?
    The goal is early reveal, not exact last-millisecond reveal.
    CS2FOW predicts using movement and ping, reveals enemies slightly before exact visibility, and keeps revealed enemies visible briefly. This intentionally leaks a small near-corner window to avoid late pop-in.

This fails to address the main point of the "pop-in" issue relevant to fog of war systems, which is that it is the victim of the peek that gets the worst pop-in effect, the peeker much less so. The aggressive peeker gets the benefit of the early-prediction from the server since they're the initiator of the movement, whereas the victim only begins to receive the information after the peeker has already gotten two network roundtrips worth of early prediction.

▲ bakies an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why wouldn't you just send the positions to both clients in the same tick? Seems trivial to solve.

	▲	Sayrus an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Peeker's advantage is not directly related to fog of war. The peeker is moving so before the movement is even sent to the server, the client's camera began moving. As such, the peeker will have at least a tick, usually more before that new position is available to the opponent. "Fixing" this would make movement sluggish: any movement would need to be validated by the server. Meaning delay between pressing keys and actual movement.
	▲	dvt an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Same tick" is a misnomer for a few reasons. First of all, games use UDP, which is basically a "fire and forget" protocol (which means packets get dropped routinely). Second of all, realtime games use some interpolation/prediction to make up for latency (and aforementioned dropped packets). So it's sort of a "relativistic" temporal system, not a linear "oh now you're at t=1, now you're at t=2" kind of timeline. And there's all kinds of complicated ways you create concensus between multiple clients, between server and clients, etc. (A lot of this remains an active research area.)

▲ webstrand an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interesting, could it be mitigated by the server doing its own prediction and defogging the peeker early? Or is lag prediction in CS2 not entirely client-sided.

	▲	xeonmc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's more that momentum-based defogging means that the peeker has control over how to manipulate the server's prediction, whereas the victim who is already disadvantaged by network latency now gets an additional penalty of the movement initiation being not telegraphed. To solve this, the fog of war would need to use purely positional near-edge tolerances, which defeats the entire purpose of fog of war to begin with, which is the pre-aiming reaction time advantage of tracking the peeker through walls in addition to having a farther lever point from the cover than the peeker.

▲ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]