Author Topic: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?  (Read 3232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline leonidas1283

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • l
  • Posts: 73
Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
So you can go farther into the game without your laptop or desktop dieing
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 5 times
Steve posted numbers that indicated five minute long turns had dropped to only taking a few seconds, so yes. As for stability, I've never really had stability issues in the first place, so probably still good?
 
The following users thanked this post: leonidas1283

Online Kytuzian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • K
  • Posts: 129
  • Thanked: 7 times
Steve posted numbers that indicated five minute long turns had dropped to only taking a few seconds, so yes. As for stability, I've never really had stability issues in the first place, so probably still good?

To be fair though, this was before he implemented AI, correct? So it'd probably be longer than a few seconds now (though still much faster).
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 478
  • Thanked: 56 times
The vast majority of lag in VB6 aurora is from vessels moving, either pathfinding calculations or sensor calculations.  It's a function of how many ships you have, not AI.

The game likely won't be much slower when AI is implemented.
 

Offline leonidas1283

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • l
  • Posts: 73
so in VB6 if you make bigger and less ships its better than having small and more ships to reduce calculation times?
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 264
  • Thanked: 18 times
I think task groups pathfind collectively so not quite, but with sensor calculations yes that is always better.
 
The following users thanked this post: leonidas1283

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1779
  • Thanked: 71 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
It's not going to be a significant difference untill you have several hundred ships.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 
The following users thanked this post: leonidas1283

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 856
  • Thanked: 39 times
Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?

This is the entire reason for the C# rewrite.  Granted, Steve has taken the opportunity to change things that ended up not working the way he wanted them to, or that he now has better ideas for. . .  and we won't know until C# Aurora is actually released. . .  but yes.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1838 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
The vast majority of lag in VB6 aurora is from vessels moving, either pathfinding calculations or sensor calculations.  It's a function of how many ships you have, not AI.

The game likely won't be much slower when AI is implemented.

Working on AI at the moment, so we should know soon :)
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky, bro918, smoelf, leonidas1283

Offline GeaXle

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 3 times
The vast majority of lag in VB6 aurora is from vessels moving, either pathfinding calculations or sensor calculations.  It's a function of how many ships you have, not AI.

Wasn't it also because the VB6 version reads and right from the database at every single increments which made it super slow? I remember the C# version will only read from the DB at start and write to DB when saving. So the game will mostly run from ram?
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Thanked: 61 times
Re: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2018, 07:11:56 AM »
The vast majority of lag in VB6 aurora is from vessels moving, either pathfinding calculations or sensor calculations.  It's a function of how many ships you have, not AI.

Wasn't it also because the VB6 version reads and right from the database at every single increments which made it super slow? I remember the C# version will only read from the DB at start and write to DB when saving. So the game will mostly run from ram?

This optimization was already put into VB6 years ago by Steve.  It gave a huge speedup.

John
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2018, 11:33:30 AM »
My campaign :

1 Unknow Alien Empire (out there)
3 NPR on Earth (China,East Coalition,Russia Hegemony)
1 NATO player

5-Day turn : 15seconds per turn..

Aurora standard its outdated. unplayable,at last.

Amen.

Am waitn for #C.
 

Offline SimonS3

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 6
Re: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2018, 02:11:47 PM »
I think a major benefit of the new C version is that it will be able to support  Multiple processors and take advantage of loading almost the entire universe into memory that alone would give one a significant improvement multi threading on a quad core system with a few GB's of memory. 
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2018, 04:43:07 AM »
Not so sure about that. Multithreading only offers noticable advantages if the processes are capable of being paralleled, and if its programmed to support it. I don't know enough about how Steve's built things out and what order of operations his code relies on for the assumptions it may make, to know if he could have, or did, thread anything.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1838 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Will C# be more stable and take less time to process increments?
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2018, 04:52:04 AM »
Currently the program is single-threaded. Due to the sequential nature of events, the scope for multi-threading is limited. Also, multi-threading is complex and can create difficult to pin down bugs, so there needs to be sufficient upside to go down that route.

Having said that, if I find an area that has performance issues and has potential for multi-threading, I will look into it at that point.
 
The following users thanked this post: muzzlehead, SimonS3

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53