The game engine just seems wasteful and inefficient

GOD DAMN IT. I KNEW IT. hdfiusalsjkcbc udslkgjbjnxchv

 

I know nothing about code but I like the way this sounds. +1

 

Yeah that's true but you don't have to be that high up in coding. It allready starts at the most Basic Level of programing that you allready start to skip the reinvention of the wheel by using librarys. I'm taking C# as reference but there everything is an object what allready has it's own logic allready prewriten and you just use it to your needs, while creating own objects. It's like a giant tree. The more steps you can skip and not having to write yourself, the faster you are, the less time and Money you consume. This very much sums it up.

Sure you could rewrite physx completly by yourself aswell as the .NET Framework (this i would like to see...haha) or even the most simple "object" but it would cost time and no developer would invest time for things that allready work and are premade.

So i fully agree with you posting

 

All I heard was...

In which my only reply is...

I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Oh ... and er ... interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the ... er ... er ...counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the ... umm ...humanity of the OP's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into ... into ... er ...Into whatever it was the post was about!

 

Just remember, don't panic.

 

While I wont directly take part in this discussion, Im here to say that I initially wanted to. 7 sites with ~90% spam made me hesitate to do so. PLEASE, if a thread looks serious (regarding the information, not the polemic writing style), stay away from it if you juft want to post memes an non-informational replies.

 

Not to bring you down but, your reply is? I thought so.

The community here is fairly good. I'm sure others see no problem in injecting something light once in a while. Also if you want to see more discussion work your way up from page one.

 

Does this mean you're aware of these... whatever those... things... are? And you'll... do... things... with things?!

 

It means he's a very hoopy frood who knows where his towel is, that's for sure. My respect for the dev team has increased by 42.

 

To be honest the guy is right, but I wouldn't go as far as calling them lazy.

They should really be using integers and unsigned integers more of set size, rather than using the extremely cumbersome double (64 bit signed value). The performance overhead is excessive and even more so on a 32-bit processor, requiring additional handling of the value. In my experience in C++, the smallest form of integer is the fastest, unsigned values are also a tad quicker, but the difference between float values and integers value operations yield much slower results, doubles exaggerate this figure further.

But I see no reason to stop the developers from changing their existing code, with no implications. For all I know, they could have the C++ compiler flag -ffast-math, and others like it which make cuts to precision, especially in high overhead operations.

 

Now I want a burger and a good drink. Know a good bar?

 

Try Pangalactic Gargleblaster somewhere at the end of the universe