0000644: The game's performance is terrible

(0001387)
Warmonger (administrator)
2010-11-15 06:16

Some optimization for the pathfinder (hashing) would come in handy, as it becomes really slow on huge maps. It's also vital for acceptable AI performance.

As to graphics, there are already few topics on our board that target this problem.

(0001407)
Zamolxis (viewer)
2010-11-16 00:19
edited on: 2010-11-16 00:23

I agree with severity as Major. The final product should not eat more resources than the original (and certainly not as many as reported here). But I changed the priority to Normal. Urgent reports are rather for crash/blocking issues noticed around new releases, which may notably affect that release if not urgently fixed.

(0001537)
Tow dragon (viewer)
2011-02-23 17:25

The problem is that we can either fix normal bugs and add new features or optimize the engine. You can't have everything. I think getting original performance is at least 1 year of working on it *exclusively* by me and Tow. I really doubt it's necessary to care so much about performance ATM.

(0001542)
Zamolxis (viewer)
2011-02-23 23:27

If performance can always be improved afterwards, I fully agree it's not a priority.

Not being a coder, I didn't know if it's something that should be considered from the beginning (that cannot be "undone"), or on the contrary, something that can always be notably improved in the end. I'm glad to hear it's the latter. :)

(0006741)
ruppertus (reporter)
2016-09-24 15:02

I agree.

(0006742)
Povelitel (updater)
2016-09-25 14:21

What version you use? I remember used 0.94 it was very slow. Now 0.98g noticeably faster.

(0006756)
ruppertus (reporter)
2016-09-28 16:36

You may close this defect. I don't even have the same hardware to retest it. Any number was registered.

(0006757)
Warmonger (administrator)
2016-09-28 18:18

Closing then.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-11-15 01:09	ruppertus	New Issue
2010-11-15 06:16	Warmonger	Note Added: 0001387
2010-11-16 00:19	Zamolxis	Note Added: 0001407
2010-11-16 00:19	Zamolxis	Priority	urgent => normal
2010-11-16 00:23	Zamolxis	Note Edited: 0001407	View Revisions
2011-02-23 17:25	Tow dragon	Note Added: 0001537
2011-02-23 23:27	Zamolxis	Note Added: 0001542
2011-02-23 23:34	Zamolxis	Priority	normal => low
2011-02-28 05:03	AVS	Note Added: 0001555
2011-02-28 06:07	AVS	Note Deleted: 0001555
2016-09-24 15:02	ruppertus	Note Added: 0006741
2016-09-25 14:21	Povelitel	Note Added: 0006742
2016-09-28 16:36	ruppertus	Note Added: 0006756
2016-09-28 18:18	Warmonger	Note Added: 0006757
2016-09-28 18:18	Warmonger	Status	new => closed
2016-09-28 18:18	Warmonger	Resolution	open => no change required

Notes
(0001387) Warmonger (administrator) 2010-11-15 06:16	Some optimization for the pathfinder (hashing) would come in handy, as it becomes really slow on huge maps. It's also vital for acceptable AI performance. As to graphics, there are already few topics on our board that target this problem.

(0001407) Zamolxis (viewer) 2010-11-16 00:19 edited on: 2010-11-16 00:23	I agree with severity as Major. The final product should not eat more resources than the original (and certainly not as many as reported here). But I changed the priority to Normal. Urgent reports are rather for crash/blocking issues noticed around new releases, which may notably affect that release if not urgently fixed.

(0001537) Tow dragon (viewer) 2011-02-23 17:25	The problem is that we can either fix normal bugs and add new features or optimize the engine. You can't have everything. I think getting original performance is at least 1 year of working on it exclusively by me and Tow. I really doubt it's necessary to care so much about performance ATM.

(0001542) Zamolxis (viewer) 2011-02-23 23:27	If performance can always be improved afterwards, I fully agree it's not a priority. Not being a coder, I didn't know if it's something that should be considered from the beginning (that cannot be "undone"), or on the contrary, something that can always be notably improved in the end. I'm glad to hear it's the latter. :)

(0006741) ruppertus (reporter) 2016-09-24 15:02	I agree.

(0006742) Povelitel (updater) 2016-09-25 14:21	What version you use? I remember used 0.94 it was very slow. Now 0.98g noticeably faster.

(0006756) ruppertus (reporter) 2016-09-28 16:36	You may close this defect. I don't even have the same hardware to retest it. Any number was registered.

(0006757) Warmonger (administrator) 2016-09-28 18:18	Closing then.

Relationships