7 ms·

"Some might say "just get a better computer". This is why getting a better computer is bad: 1. Affordance: A lot of people, especially from 3rd world countries

"Some might say "just get a better computer". This is why getting a better computer is bad: 1. Affordance: A lot of people, especially from 3rd world countries are very poor and can't afford to buy hardware to run Turbobloat. 2. e-Waste: Producing computer chips is very bad on the environment. If modern software wasn't Turbobloated you would buy new hardware only when the previous hardware broke and wasn't repairable. 3. Not putting up with Turbobloat: Why spend money on another computer if you already have one that works perfectly fine? Just because of someone else's turbobloat? You could buy 1000 cans of Dr. Pepper instead." Took the words from my mouth. What a great project. Please keep posting your progress.

Narishma 2y ago
They say that but the engine seems to require an OpenGL 4 GPU while the graphics look like something that could be done on a Voodoo card.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Requires a 15 year old card (so, 2010.) Six years after Half Life 2 but looks like Half Life 1, which shipped with a software renderer (no GPU needed at all!) I fear the turbobloat is still with us.
  - vanderZwan 2y ago
    Ok, so one the one hand we have one of the most universally acclaimed PC games in history, with a team of amazing programmers and artists behind it and a 40 million dollar development budget, and which represented the cutting edge of what was possible at the time in terms of squeezing every bit of performance out of a machine. On the other we have a one-person hobbyist project that is trying to make a statement about consumerist expectations for more, more, more. If you're sincere about that comparison then I think you're missing the point. Being able to run something on fifteen year old machines is still plenty anti-turbobloat. And I suspect the 2010 requirement has more to do with the fact that it's pretty difficult to debug software for 1990s hardware that you don't have (or lack proper emulation for). And if you go back far enough one reaches a tipping point where supporting old hardware can get in the way of something running on new hardware, especially if we're talking about games, unless we're really careful about what we're doing and test on real hardware all the time. Not very realistic for a one-person side project.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      That six year gap between HL2 and 2010 is considerable, so I don't think I'm being terribly unfair. Also, the article invited the Half Life comparison.
lukan 2y ago
"Screen resolutions from 320x200 to 800x600." Still, higher resolutions were not just invented because of Turbobloat.
- plussed_reader 2y ago
  But also a convenient excuse to sell more ramm and disk space 'for the textures'.
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    Hard to know how to respond to that. This could be applied to virtually all technology changes that benefit users but also make money for someone else. I assume you use a refrigerator and not a hole in the ground with ice. Have you been manipulated into giving money to Big Appliance?
    - mlekoszek 2y ago
      To an absolute hardliner for appropriate technology, probably -- but simplicity isn't necessarily all-or-nothing, and (IMO) helping people pull off cool things with simpler tools isn't so bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology
      - shermantanktop 2y ago
        Sure, but we're not talking about how to irrigate a field here, we're talking about being limited to 600x800 resolution when playing a game. Some people were teenagers when that was the best you could get, so I'm guessing they see it as a "good old days" baseline that they can be principled about while indulging their nostalgia.
        lukan 2y ago
        I remember that was the best I can get and I was thrilled for it at the time. But then I was even more thrilled when Far Cry came out. Then Crysis ... why would I go back? Now you surely can argue, that nowdays the creativity got lower in favour of just more textures, but I like to have both. Still, for a simple game limiting to 800x600 for performance and dev reasons - why not? But for me it means I see no use case for myself.
jameshart 2y ago
What is ‘turbobloat’? From context, I interpret it to be ‘graphics tech I don’t like’, but I’m not sure what counts as turbobloat.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- taberiand 2y ago
  The whole post in tongue in cheek, it just means "features the game you're making doesn't need (like modern graphics with advanced shaders and super high resolution requiring the latest graphics cards)". If you're making a game that needs those features, obviously you'll need to bloat up. If you're not, maybe this SDK will be enough and be fast and small as well.
speedgoose 2y ago
Manufacturing and shipping a new computer can be worth it long term. Improvements in performance and energy consumption can offset the environmental impact after some time. Of course for entertainment it’s difficult to judge, especially when you may have more fun on an old gameboy than a brand new 1000W gaming PC.
- vanderZwan 2y ago
  > after some time. This is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. What you're talking about is called the embodied energy of a product[0]. In the case of electronic hardware it is pretty staggeringly high if I'm not mistaken. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy
  - speedgoose 2y ago
    Yes it can be. Last time I did the maths for one of my use cases. It was a matter of a few years, when replacing a few old amd64 boxes by a single Mac mini.

Narishma 2y ago

They say that but the engine seems to require an OpenGL 4 GPU while the graphics look like something that could be done on a Voodoo card.

lupusreal 2y ago
Requires a 15 year old card (so, 2010.) Six years after Half Life 2 but looks like Half Life 1, which shipped with a software renderer (no GPU needed at all!) I fear the turbobloat is still with us.
- vanderZwan 2y ago
  Ok, so one the one hand we have one of the most universally acclaimed PC games in history, with a team of amazing programmers and artists behind it and a 40 million dollar development budget, and which represented the cutting edge of what was possible at the time in terms of squeezing every bit of performance out of a machine. On the other we have a one-person hobbyist project that is trying to make a statement about consumerist expectations for more, more, more. If you're sincere about that comparison then I think you're missing the point. Being able to run something on fifteen year old machines is still plenty anti-turbobloat. And I suspect the 2010 requirement has more to do with the fact that it's pretty difficult to debug software for 1990s hardware that you don't have (or lack proper emulation for). And if you go back far enough one reaches a tipping point where supporting old hardware can get in the way of something running on new hardware, especially if we're talking about games, unless we're really careful about what we're doing and test on real hardware all the time. Not very realistic for a one-person side project.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    That six year gap between HL2 and 2010 is considerable, so I don't think I'm being terribly unfair. Also, the article invited the Half Life comparison.

lukan 2y ago

"Screen resolutions from 320x200 to 800x600." Still, higher resolutions were not just invented because of Turbobloat.

plussed_reader 2y ago
But also a convenient excuse to sell more ramm and disk space 'for the textures'.
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  Hard to know how to respond to that. This could be applied to virtually all technology changes that benefit users but also make money for someone else. I assume you use a refrigerator and not a hole in the ground with ice. Have you been manipulated into giving money to Big Appliance?
  - mlekoszek 2y ago
    To an absolute hardliner for appropriate technology, probably -- but simplicity isn't necessarily all-or-nothing, and (IMO) helping people pull off cool things with simpler tools isn't so bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology
    - shermantanktop 2y ago
      Sure, but we're not talking about how to irrigate a field here, we're talking about being limited to 600x800 resolution when playing a game. Some people were teenagers when that was the best you could get, so I'm guessing they see it as a "good old days" baseline that they can be principled about while indulging their nostalgia.
      - lukan 2y ago
        I remember that was the best I can get and I was thrilled for it at the time. But then I was even more thrilled when Far Cry came out. Then Crysis ... why would I go back? Now you surely can argue, that nowdays the creativity got lower in favour of just more textures, but I like to have both. Still, for a simple game limiting to 800x600 for performance and dev reasons - why not? But for me it means I see no use case for myself.

jameshart 2y ago

What is ‘turbobloat’? From context, I interpret it to be ‘graphics tech I don’t like’, but I’m not sure what counts as turbobloat.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
taberiand 2y ago
The whole post in tongue in cheek, it just means "features the game you're making doesn't need (like modern graphics with advanced shaders and super high resolution requiring the latest graphics cards)". If you're making a game that needs those features, obviously you'll need to bloat up. If you're not, maybe this SDK will be enough and be fast and small as well.

speedgoose 2y ago

Manufacturing and shipping a new computer can be worth it long term. Improvements in performance and energy consumption can offset the environmental impact after some time. Of course for entertainment it’s difficult to judge, especially when you may have more fun on an old gameboy than a brand new 1000W gaming PC.

vanderZwan 2y ago
> after some time. This is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. What you're talking about is called the embodied energy of a product[0]. In the case of electronic hardware it is pretty staggeringly high if I'm not mistaken. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy
- speedgoose 2y ago
  Yes it can be. Last time I did the maths for one of my use cases. It was a matter of a few years, when replacing a few old amd64 boxes by a single Mac mini.