Re: The General Unhappiness Thread
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:16 am
Actually, I quite like this quote. Well-said.kaeroku wrote:Complaints and courtesy are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, I quite like this quote. Well-said.kaeroku wrote:Complaints and courtesy are not mutually exclusive.
I tried to be neutral for a long time but in the last days, there are things that I just don't understand. Notami has a point, that, I guess, a few others share. It's his opinion, he brings an example and arguments while others bring their own examples. Why shut this down? Because it's uncomfortable?JoshParnell wrote:Notami has clearly voiced his/her opinions on my competency. Let's leave it at that. No need for a thread lock, but no need to beat a dead horse either.
I was reading for some sign in Josh's update that he has learned the value of doing the doable; I didn't find it. A couple of sentences amid that wall of text would have been enough, an acknowledgement that plan B is not unthinkable. How many features would need to get cut, how far would ambitions need to be scaled back? Instead he gave it a name, FPLT, in order that we might better visualise his heroic struggle against this beast and cheer him on. Well, phooey to that.Zanteogo wrote:Why hasn't he reached out for help?
Made a post about the same and ask what feature he could drop that is causing the performance problem but one would also have to look at what hardware he is testing because I dont agree with that it has to run on a 10 year old crap pc.Zero Gravitas wrote:I was reading for some sign in Josh's update that he has learned the value of doing the doable; I didn't find it. A couple of sentences amid that wall of text would have been enough, an acknowledgement that plan B is not unthinkable. How many features would need to get cut, how far would ambitions need to be scaled back? Instead he gave it a name, FPLT, in order that we might better visualise his heroic struggle against this beast and cheer him on. Well, phooey to that.Zanteogo wrote:Why hasn't he reached out for help?
Guys & Gals, you're all missing the point: it's not a *feature* that's causing the performance problem, it's literally everything that isn't the graphic renderer of a system.Lemar wrote:Made a post about the same and ask what feature he could drop that is causing the performance problem but one would also have to look at what hardware he is testing because I dont agree with that it has to run on a 10 year old crap pc.
The computer Josh is getting < 20 FPS on is a decent one, not ten years old. LT as it exists right now likely won't run on most machines at a "decent" framerate - at least, not decent by gaming standards. That's not really acceptable, especially when he hasn't even finished adding content.Lemar wrote: Made a post about the same and ask what feature he could drop that is causing the performance problem but one would also have to look at what hardware he is testing because I dont agree with that it has to run on a 10 year old crap pc.
This cannot be true because we have seen the game in action running at decent FPS with most of this already added. (I know it's been several years since we have seen a dev video..)Ringu wrote:Guys & Gals, you're all missing the point: it's not a *feature* that's causing the performance problem, it's literally everything that isn't the graphic renderer of a system.Lemar wrote:Made a post about the same and ask what feature he could drop that is causing the performance problem but one would also have to look at what hardware he is testing because I dont agree with that it has to run on a 10 year old crap pc.
So, if he wanted to cut it out, he'd release a game that had no AI of any kind, no entities would exist (like NPCs, or your own spaceship), possibly no planets or asteroids depending on how that's coded, and no ability to display a HUD either.
He's trying to work out how to put a game onto the renderer, not how to make warp rails work, or anything like that.
Plan B in my mind would be writing pure C code and keeping the codebase under 100K lines. That version of LT would be less than was promised, certainly. The AI would be less nuanced, but how many of us would notice or care? There would be no modding support, which was not promised in the Kickstarter. Out-of-system simulation might be reduced to a few weighted dice rolls and a lot of fudging. But it would be a game, a real actually existing game that the backers could play.Ringu wrote:it's not a *feature* that's causing the performance problem, it's literally everything that isn't the graphic renderer of a system.
I just want to point out that it's very easy to make things look like they run at a higher FPS than they are, especially when you have access to the code.Zanteogo wrote:This cannot be true because we have seen the game in action running at decent FPS with most of this already added. (I know it's been several years since we have seen a dev video..)
No its notTalvieno wrote: The computer Josh is getting < 20 FPS on is a decent one, not ten years old. LT as it exists right now likely won't run on most machines at a "decent" framerate - at least, not decent by gaming standards. That's not really acceptable, especially when he hasn't even finished adding content.
By feature I mean for example the limitless universe...if it adds to the number of entities, background simulation then drop it or more like cut it down to 3-4 galaxies and 5-7 sectors per galaxy. He mentioned once that he would like to have 256 AIs per sector, drop it, try 128, 64 and so on. I don't mean drop the AI but maybe make it more stupid less reasoning.Ringu wrote: Guys & Gals, you're all missing the point: it's not a *feature* that's causing the performance problem, it's literally everything that isn't the graphic renderer of a system.