4 ms·
I think you're missing the point about performance in games. More than in other kinds of software, adding new "features" to games tends to slow the game down m
by wtetzner 5y ago
I think you're missing the point about performance in games.
More than in other kinds of software, adding new "features" to games tends to slow the game down more (you're trying to do more in the time you have to render a frame). So often performance improvements are needed simply to make room for more "features".
- johnnyanmac 5y ago>So often performance improvements are needed simply to make room for more "features" absolutely. I'm an engine programmer and this has to be my train of thought, otherwise I'd be out of a job (you know, until the 11th hour where I break a lot of work just to get something out). I'm not saving a few milliseconds on some feature that "only" takes 2 milliseconds because the game needs maximum performance. It's so when the director or designer comes up with some other crazy idea that they have more frame budget to try and fit it in. They may still not be able to, but I don't want my default answer to be "no, we can't spare the time" (not unless it's something absurd).
- Ygg2 5y agoAnd I'm saying. Sure some games/software goes for careful time budgeting. Others don't. Because the floor for performance tolerance is low enough you don't need to bother most of the time. After all premature optimization is the root of all evil.
- wtetzner 5y agoI suspect that even for the slow games you listed, performance was very important to get the number of features they needed into the game. > After all premature optimization is the root of all evil. This quote means not to optimize too early, not that you shouldn't optimize at all.