Talk about anything

Tomcat This point I do not really understand. Optimization usually happens at the end of the work. It is possible to estimate, but only approximately the desired level of minimum requirements. And it is necessary to test, on all available configurations.

Yes, I said develop against it, not necessarily on it. It's just that the minimum spec you've set yourself is the one you test the most.

Tomcat But it is possible to emulate a small monitor on a large one, but the opposite… difficult.

Actually, you can go both ways. I wrote a script that allows you do choose the resolution while in game (the idea was to use it on an options menu) and I can support any resolution, high or low. For example, I used this to test 4K performance on my 1440p monitor. I wouldn't say it was easy, it took me a day or two to write the script, but not that long in terms of how long it takes to make a game (and the code is generic, so could be used on any Godot project). Maybe I should release the source code, it is pretty handy.

Megalomaniak Yes, I said develop against it, not necessarily on it. It's just that the minimum spec you've set yourself is the one you test the most.

My computer is pretty good, but I have a $100 Intel mini-PC, as well as various laptops, that I use for testing. I would not want to develop on that $100 computer (I tried to cause I was going to make a video about it, and it was so painful). But it's important to test on more than your own machine. Different specs, GPU brands, OSes, etc.

I would imagine res is sort of like sprites? You can shrink them, but it looks bad if you stretch them.

I do get the point of developing on an overpowered machine, as you want as much of your workflow to be fast as possible.

I kinda wish there was some way to emulate/nerf performance realistically to match a given hardware target, but when I eventually do release a game I would just alter my target FPS according to https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1070/3918vs3609

This is purely me eyeballing it, but the GTX1070's performance looks to be roughly the Median graphics card for Steam users atm.

Bimbam I kinda wish there was some way to emulate/nerf performance realistically to match a given hardware target

Me too. I have looked into it, and there is not an easy way to do this. Technically it could work, but it would have to be some sort of hardware switch. For example, disabling a portion of shader cores, slowing the processor, reducing the VRAM allocation, etc. On Windows, you can sort of do this with apps like MSI Afterburner. At least you can reduce the clock rate to an arbitrary number and things like that. But you would also need to limit the VRAM, disable shader cores, and a few other things for an apples to apples comparison. Linux is a little more limited in this sense in terms of overclocking (though there are some command line apps, they aren't as robust as the tools for Windows).

cybereality that is one thing that is neat with the Steam Deck and Steam OS - you can adjust the system wattage and the GPU clock speed easily. It isn’t quite like the Windows tools yet, but it is the closest I’ve seen so far from an easy usability perspective.

I wrote a tool that could nerf networking. It injected itself into the Winsock sendto function and added random packet corruption, packet loss, reordering, etc, even when testing on a LAN or single machine.
It was for testing my students' network game projects (they had to implement their own UDP based network protocols).

Bimbam Looks awesome!

Bimbam

Oh, that's great!!!

My issue is not the resolution, but the physical size of the screen. I've got a 14" walmart laptop, and my games are mostly aimed at android, so that should be fine. I can run firefox, vim, xterm, etc. with large text. Godot's 3.x ide fits reasonably well -- I have to use mouseover to see some of the debug values -- but running the fonts at 24/26 causes 4.x menus to expand to the point that they force the right sidebar completely off the screen. Godot's interface is designed in godot, and it suffers in some areas because of it, though I'd say it's an overall advantage.

I imagine they'll fix it before I want to move up. But you can see why a plain text-editor still appeals to me, although (ironically) the 2D/3D parts of 4.x are the ones most affected.

cybereality

Thanks, I think I want to actually turn this into a minigame, unlike previous projects that are largely just static scenarios.

Something like Pokemon Snap where you can explore a small area around the oasis to try and get money shots of animals without startling them. Will mean needing to find/make animated HQ saharan animals though, but then any new 3D scenario I make just becomes a new 'level'.

Someone mentioned being interested in game development, so I suggested Godot to them for its simplicity. Honestly I hope more beginner friendly tuts start popping up soon.

Yeah, I always recommend Godot. Like if you don't know what to choose, then you should be using Godot.

cybereality I think it's the best general purpose engine around, especially for beginners. Low hardware requirements. Easy language. Very good editor.

Honestly, I have been researching 3D engines and testing stuff for about 20 years. I have evaluated literally every 3D engine that has come out in that time (that was available to download) and most of them fell short. Though there were some good ones here and there, they never got enough attention and disappeared. So when I found Godot I was so happy. Finally a decent interface and an easy to use engine, that still looked pretty good, and was getting popular. This is rare.