1071
Sure, if you put it like that...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
1071 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
8625 readers
3274 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is how it works in many game engines.
You set up the monsters and just hide them/disable them. They're already allocated to memory.
And it's a performance cost to create/delete versus just moving a dead enemy out of view, then respawning that enemy later in the level.
Dynamic streaming is common nowadays, as games have gotten large enough that not everything in a level can fit into memory.
I don't know about what is actually done in industry but I feel like most of the time you wouldn't bother with keeping dead instances unless instancing is shown to actually be a performance problem, which will probably not happen all that often
Godot for example doesn't have built in dynamic level streaming yet or a built in way to cycle through dead instances as far as I can tell, although I'm sure that wouldn't be hard to do with code
If it's a type of enemy you see just one of at a time but see it often, sure. If there's many, cost of copy/delete is definitely not that high relatively speaking.
(random sidenote: in the first Mirror's Edge game, you can sometimes hear enemies you passed scream as they fall when you pass from one part of a map to another, as the ground in the map is unloaded before the enemies unload)