Timeline for When should I use a fixed or variable time step?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2010 at 5:36 | comment | added | Kaj | I don't think slowdown in a game as a result of fixed timestep can ever be intentional, because it's because of lack of control. Lack of control is by definition surrendering to chance and thus can't be intentional. It can happen to be what you had in mind, but that's as far as I'd like to go on that. As for fixed timestep in networking, there's a definite plus there, as keeping physics engines on two different machines in synch without the same timestep is pretty impossible. Since the only option to synch then would be to send all entity transforms, that would be way too bandwidth heavy. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 14:15 | comment | added | falstro | You should definitely read the Gaffer on games link in the original post. I don't think this is a bad answer per se, so I won't down vote it, but I don't agree with any of your arguments. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 13:40 | history | answered | identitycrisisuk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |