On Thursday, 23 May 2019 at 20:20:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
flexibility. And I think you're *SEVERELY* underestimating the
flexibility of modern game engines. And I say this having
personally used modern game engines. Have you?
No, I don't use them. I read about how they are organized, but I
have no need for the big gaming frameworks which seems to look
very bloated, and frankly limiting. I am not really interested in
big static photorealistic landscapes. If I went there then I
would go for algorithmic surrealistic landscapes, and the
frameworks won't fit that. Too static, too euclidean.
When I (which is very rare) hit the hardware I tend to favour
bare bones for my simple needs which won't benefit from any big
framework. Hardware is fast enough anyway, the limit is in trying
to figure out clever ways to use shaders for things like
audio-waveform zooming and getting decent quality from it etc.
Hardware is fast enough, the limit is in figuring out the best
way to do it.
But I am moving towards doing everything in the browser, and am
adopting Angular for regular UI which is even another layer on
top of that. It appears to make me more productive. Maybe I'll
change my mind later, but right now Angular seems to be more
productive than other options. So the whining about browsers
being inefficient is lost on me for regular UI. Programmer
productivity matters.
Browsers are actually doing quite well with simple 2D graphics
today. Even some 3D is starting to look ok.
FWIW, On 80's technology, I would completely agree with you.
And even to some extent on 90's tech. But not today.
Ok, I've always been interested in spatial datastructures, audio,
2D/3D, raytracing and I don't think there, on a fundamental
level, has been any significant theoretical
achievements/conceptual shifts since the early 2000s. Except
perhaps for the increased focus on point-clouds.
So, I think what you see has more to do with GPU performance and
availability of RAM and more mature frameworks than anything else?
