I know I said I would work on a new project (which I actually was) but then I read something (which I should have foreseen knowing that forum_account is quite active in developing his pixel-movement, a comment by FA, confirming he would update his pixel-movement. Well, he updated it to support BYOND's native pixel-movement and it is -much- more efficient.
In War Bots, 3 people could cause 75 world cpu; now they would probably only be able to wrack up 3-5%, meaning the player limit for games no longer has to be 8, and the game can have a higher frame-rate.
I'm back to work on War Bots again, but due to me carelessly picking my schedule for this year of class (I chose a class with mostly seniors in it, and I'm a sophomore) I'll be spending a lot more time studying than usual. Anyways, look for War Bots sometime soon.
ID:118346
 Sep 10 2011, 1:49 am
|
|
|
Sep 10 2011, 4:30 am
|
|
Masterdarwin88
 |
Interesting. Keep working on it!
|
So which one lags less? Byond's Pixel Movement or Forum Account's?
| |
Truseeker wrote:
So which one lags less? Byond's Pixel Movement or Forum Account's? I'd avoid the term "lag" because that could mean one of many things (network, CPU, etc.) The newest version of my library uses BYOND's built-in pixel movement, so there's really no difference (in terms of CPU usage). The library provides the same interface it always has (the vel_x/vel_y vars, its own movement procs, etc.) it just now, internally, calls BYOND's pixel movement functions. | |
Tru, BYOND's doesn't use as much cpu, however, that can't be helped, as that was before, a limitation.
I still like FA's library because certain things are just easier with it. Not to mention I already have projects heavily programmed with his lib, and his lib has friction (wouldn't be hard to produce, but it's just nice to have that by default). | |