It might be more worrying if we know the exact amount of time left on NS2, but right now it's best to let them get on with their job and worry about optimisations later. They're in a tough, self-made spot with a public release out, but we should be mindful that optimisation is best done at the end of a dev cycle, and give them the time and trust to fix it according to their own informed schedule.
<!--quoteo(post=1850371:date=Jun 6 2011, 07:48 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Jun 6 2011, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1850371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It might be more worrying if we know the exact amount of time left on NS2, but right now it's best to let them get on with their job and worry about optimisations later. They're in a tough, self-made spot with a public release out, but we should be mindful that optimisation is best done at the end of a dev cycle, and give them the time and trust to fix it according to their own informed schedule.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah normally I'd agree, but from what I can tell they switched away from something that could potentially give huge performance gains later in favour of something that only gave very minor performance gains, although again I might be missing some information.
<!--quoteo(post=1850397:date=Jun 6 2011, 09:46 PM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Jun 6 2011, 09:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1850397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How much work is it to go back though?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one here can know. Thats the nature of programming, unfortunately. It depends on exactly what Max already done.
Good estimates are the holy grail of software development. Or maybe more like the Loch Ness monster, based on how rare they are. Borderline mythical, really.
<!--quoteo(post=1850356:date=Jun 6 2011, 03:06 PM:name=Ares550)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ares550 @ Jun 6 2011, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1850356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have dual 5770's and a quad core 3.0 and it runs like garbage<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1850371:date=Jun 6 2011, 11:48 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Jun 6 2011, 11:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1850371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It might be more worrying if we know the exact amount of time left on NS2, but right now it's best to let them get on with their job and worry about optimisations later. They're in a tough, self-made spot with a public release out, but we should be mindful that optimisation is best done at the end of a dev cycle, and give them the time and trust to fix it according to their own informed schedule.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on the area, and the optimisation.
With levels for example, you'll have far more luck building them thoughtfully from the start, which can leave you with very little optimisation work to do at the end.
Actually I find 'think about what you're doing from the start' to be a good maxim in any situation, although it's admittedly only practical if you know how the system you're working with will behave.
I imagine if you're building a game engine and game from scratch you'd probably have a lot of unexpected emergent behaviour, it's not like mapping or making particle effects for a static game and engine, so a degree of 'well bugger that isn't working right, have to redo it' is proabably unavoidable.
Comments
Yeah normally I'd agree, but from what I can tell they switched away from something that could potentially give huge performance gains later in favour of something that only gave very minor performance gains, although again I might be missing some information.
No one here can know. Thats the nature of programming, unfortunately. It depends on exactly what Max already done.
Good estimates are the holy grail of software development. Or maybe more like the Loch Ness monster, based on how rare they are. Borderline mythical, really.
PEBKAC
Depends on the area, and the optimisation.
With levels for example, you'll have far more luck building them thoughtfully from the start, which can leave you with very little optimisation work to do at the end.
Actually I find 'think about what you're doing from the start' to be a good maxim in any situation, although it's admittedly only practical if you know how the system you're working with will behave.
I imagine if you're building a game engine and game from scratch you'd probably have a lot of unexpected emergent behaviour, it's not like mapping or making particle effects for a static game and engine, so a degree of 'well bugger that isn't working right, have to redo it' is proabably unavoidable.