The Problems With The UEF - Part 4 (The Ambassador & Blackbird)
-
@nex said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 4 (The Ambassador & Blackbird):
@comradestryker What are you trying to tell me?
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this chart and its contents, but based on this, Jamming isn't a load on the CPU or processing. Even with the new update having it refresh.
~ Stryker
-
@comradestryker No the concern was, that if you have to run a script (resetting the jamming blips) on (possibly) every unit it would be quite performance heavy. But since the calculation is simple and takes a constant (and small) amount of time per unit it won't have much of a performance impact. At least not the function that is resetting the jamming blips. The blips themselves might be more heavy, because it doesn't just add a small computation to each tick, but it adds one small computation per weapon that could aim at it, per tick. So putting jamming on units, that come in the hundreds in an average game will have a noticeable impact on performance.
-
@nex said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 4 (The Ambassador & Blackbird):
@comradestryker No the concern was, that if you have to run a script (resetting the jamming blips) on (possibly) every unit it would be quite performance heavy. But since the calculation is simple and takes a constant (and small) amount of time per unit it won't have much of a performance impact. At least not the function that is resetting the jamming blips. The blips themselves might be more heavy, because it doesn't just add a small computation to each tick, but it adds one small computation per weapon that could aim at it, per tick. So putting jamming on units, that come in the hundreds in an average game will have a noticeable impact on performance.
I just double-checked this with @Jip, the question was "Would jamming (in large quantities) affect performance?"
And I quote their reply "Not to the degree that it would cause a (significant) slowdown."They clarified that they are in fact, still entities, yes, but based on their direct reply - no, they would not affect performance as much as you may think.
~ Stryker
-
They would affect performance if you gave it to units that you spam a lot and are densely packed - ASF. As Nex has stated each weapon of each ASF needs to go through all possible targets within its range every x amount of seconds. If you increase the number of targets by introducing jamming blips you will notice the performance hit. The whole point of: Reducing target check intervals, simplifying target priorities and decreasing the formation density of ASF was to reduce the impact that weapons checking for targets have on the game during air battles. If you were to introduce jamming for ASF even with just a couple of blips you would probably increase the sim cost of ASF battles by between 50% to probably well over 100% depending on the number of blips.
OG post: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/3808/weapon-target-check-intervals?_=1663704360328
-
Does the range of asf extend past their vision?
-
@veteranashe no, but vision is kinda fuzzy and i'm not sure if they start targeting/considering units before they get into range.
-
Considering all the improvements made to FAF's performance in the last year or so, I'd rather not see some lost for the sake of a (truthfully) near meaningless buff such as jamming.
-
I see. Thanks for the clarification!
Follow up question:I've been told the current number of jamming signatures cannot be changed - is this due to an engine limitation or something else? Why can't the entities be much less in number? Having a strat with 3 Jamming Signatures, a Spy Plane with 5, and an ASF with one (if jamming on ASF is still on the table), then that would work far better, and ease the 'load' of the performance aspect - not to mention better gameplay wise, too - in my opinion, at least.
~Stryker
-
I've no issues with jamming on scouts and bombers performance wise but ASF is off the table
-
Jamming on scouts and strats should just be a given tbh
