Timeline for When should I use a fixed or variable time step?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2017 at 23:22 | comment | added | AaronLS | Not trying to diminish your answer, but I would interpret this as fixed step where rendering is not tied to directly to physics update rate, except that catching up on physics takes priority over rendering. It definitely has good qualities. | |
| Sep 10, 2010 at 6:17 | comment | added | user744 | Iain, we are talking specifically about arcade-style games here, which are traditionally high-score-list / leaderboard driven. I play a ton of shmups, and I know if I found someone was posting scores with artificial slowdown to leaderboards I'd want their scores wiped. | |
| Sep 9, 2010 at 9:36 | comment | added | Iain | Joe that only matters if we care about "cheating". Most modern games aren't really about competition between players, just making a fun experience. | |
| Sep 9, 2010 at 9:11 | comment | added | user744 | Without fixed hardware like an arcade machine, having arcade games slow the simulation when the hardware can't keep up makes playing on a slower machine cheating. | |
| Sep 8, 2010 at 17:44 | comment | added | Ipsquiggle | Strongly agree with that last point; in pretty much all games, input should 'slow down' when the framerate drops. Even though this isn't possible in some games (i.e. multiplayer), it would still be better if it were possible. :P It simply feels better than having a long frame and then having the game world 'jump' to the 'correct' state. | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 8:29 | history | answered | Overkill | CC BY-SA 2.5 |