I'm going to miss Josh talking about option z though...
Bonus:
Spoiler: SHOW
They said it couldn't be done! The satisfaction must be tremendous.JoshParnell wrote:I'm already threading the C-side logic.
I told you soJoshParnell wrote:All it took was...[...]multithreading
This is very literally *NOT* what I say at all.Cornflakes_91 wrote:You arent allowed to use the multithreading because you always say "nobody needs multithreading, get a better CPU".
Yes, but the quote (emphasis mine) was:jonathanredden wrote:honestly 10,000 missiles and 100,000 game objects may seem mind blowing but I honestly believe that that number, isn't that much you should strive for hundreds of thousands of game objects if not millions of game objects, this game is truly a procedural game so these numbers are a drop in a bucket.
I certainly anticipate that the game ultimately needs to track an enormous number of things, but I do not imagine that it needs to track very many entities at a per-frame resolution. Anything potentially on screen would need that. Anything out of view/range/system can surely have dramatically slower updates.we can perform non-trivial, per-frame logic on >100K entities @ 60 FPS with a good deal of headroom
OOh.. my beast-rig will be oh so happy.. ty Josh, Sean, AdamJoshParnell wrote:Hyperion wrote:I'm gonna need another pair of pants from this log.
Yes that's what I was talking about SATURATE ALL THE CORES!!Hyperion wrote:Does threading mean the possibility of using multiple cpus? LT on a supercomputer?
"Truly procedural" has nothing to do with the amount of objects you have active at once.jonathanredden wrote:honestly 10,000 missiles and 100,000 game objects may seem mind blowing but I honestly believe that that number, isn't that much you should strive for hundreds of thousands of game objects if not millions of game objects, this game is truly a procedural game so these numbers are a drop in a bucket.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests